The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting held on 5July2000 on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The second meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC) sector took place on 5July in Dublin. Following nomination by the FirstMinister and the Deputy First Minister, MrMichaelMcGimpsey and I represented Northern Ireland. MrFrankFahey TD, Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, represented the Irish Government. The Executive Committee noted the papers for the Council on 29June. The meeting opened with a useful update from the chairman, Peter Savage, and the interim chief executive, DerickAnderson. They outlined the Loughs Agency’s progress to date in taking forward the work of the agency and, in particular, the progress in relation to the agency’s proposed work programme. The Council then considered and approved a number of papers put before it. These were the corporate plan for the years 2000-02; a code of conduct for board members of the FCILC; a code of conduct for the staff of the Loughs Agency; a draft equality scheme for the agency; and regulations for angling permits for the Rivers Foyle and Finn. The Council also gave its approval, subject to the final approval of both Finance Ministers, to the staffing proposals put forward by the Loughs Agency.
In addition, the Council was updated on the making of the legislation to enhance the functions of the Loughs Agency of the FCILC in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, and in relation to the transfer of the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the body.
Finally, the Council agreed to meet again in September — although I understand that that has now been put back until early November — and approved the issue of a joint communiqué, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. I am making this report on behalf of myself and MrMcGimpsey.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for her report. My questions relate to paragraph 7 of the report and, in particular, the reference to legislation transferring the functions of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to the North/South body. Does the Minister agree that the essential problem that the legislation will have to tackle is that historically Irish inshore lights in both Northern Ireland and the Republic have been subsidised out of the general lighthouse fund administered by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions? There is an issue of cross-subsidisation of the functions here from GreatBritain. Does the Minister agree that in the light of that financial transfer, it would be sensible for the British-Irish Council to be involved in the Irish Lights function as well as the North/South Ministerial Council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Officials are working to achieve a transfer as quickly and effectively as possible. As the Member will appreciate, marine safety is a sensitive issue subject to international conventions. Transferring responsibility in a way which allows both the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue to meet their obligations is a complex issue. There are unique funding arrangements for the Commissioners of Irish Lights through the general lighthouse fund, and it is necessary to ensure proper accountability for that funding. Furthermore, a legislative vehicle must be identified to make the transfer of functions at Westminster. The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is concerned about the level of funding from the Irish Government, but that is a matter for the United Kingdom and Irish Governments.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: During the past few months anglers have had major difficulties pertaining to Ballyarton weir and the River Faughan. What is the current position with regard to the improvements there?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware from the Member’s representations that there have been difficulties with the weir for a number of months. The difficulties that were delaying the improvements to ease the passage of fish over the weir have now been overcome. I hope that the work will be completed by the end of September. An interim solution has been put in place to ensure that the fish can pass freely if the water conditions become available.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Minister accept that there is concern about the degree of secrecy that surrounds this and so many other meetings? She refers in paragraph 5 of her statement to a corporate plan for the years 2000-02, a draft code for conduct for board members, and various other documents. I take a considerable interest in this because Carlingford Lough is in the constituency of South Down. I am not aware of any of these documents having been made available to Members. Can the Minister assure me that all the material published by this board will be brought forward for public debate?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am not aware that there has been any secrecy. Reports of all North/South Ministerial Council meetings that have dealt with the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission have been published, and we have made clear what has been happening. For instance, the equality scheme being prepared by the Council will go out for consultation in the near future, and the code of conduct is available on request. Information about the Council’s work is also available.

Mr Speaker: I am advised that Members are finding it difficult to hear those speaking in the corners of the Chamber. This is an unusual phenomenon. Technical checks are being made, but in the meantime perhaps Members in that part of the Chamber will project their voices more.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the first time in my political career, someone has found it hard to hear me. I asked the Minister about the corporate plan. Will it be published and made available to Members?

Mr Speaker: I think it is fair enough for that question to be repeated.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The acoustics in the Chamber must be the problem. I do not think that it is my hearing or the projection of the Member’s voice. The corporate plan has been published, or will be published when it is ready.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Everyone will agree that the transfer of functions to the all-Ireland North/South Ministerial Council and the implementation body will benefit cross-border activity and co-operation. According to the statement, the Council was updated about legislation to enhance the functions of the Loughs Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, in line with the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. What is the position on that?

Ms Brid Rodgers: Work on aquaculture legislation and the transfer of functions from the Foyle Fisheries to the Loughs Agency, are proceeding at all levels. This includes the development and licensing of aquaculture on Lough Foyle. Policy matters have proved more difficult and complex, but legislation is progressing in all areas and we hope to advance it as quickly as possible.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: We in this corner are finding it difficult to hear the Minister’s responses. There may be a problem.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I have two questions. She said that the corporate plan had been published, and then added that it will be published. Can she clarify this? My second question concerns the regulations for angling permits for the Rivers Foyle and Finn. When will these permits be made available to anglers?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The corporate plan has not yet been published, but it will be.
The Foyle and Finn angling permits have been published and will be available. The legislation is being amended to allow the Loughs Agency to take over these functions.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Minister said she was speaking on behalf of herself and Minister McGimpsey. We are all aware of the confusion arising from the involvement of two Departments in this matter. Is the Minister really aware of the confusion in the angling community over the administration of permits and licences by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission? Will she undertake to try to simplify this matter, especially with regard to paying twice for a licence for a day’s angling, which could easily take place in both jurisdictions? This issue is important to local anglers, but it is more important for tourists. If local anglers are confused, tourists will be thoroughly confused. I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at this more closely.

Ms Brid Rodgers: I recognise the Member’s interest in angling matters. There is bound to be confusion during the process of change. I agree to undertake to see whether matters can be simplified. The Member is aware that people with a Fisheries Conservancy Board licence can have it endorsed at a lesser price to fish in the FCILC area.

Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Can she provide an update on progress in relation to the Loughs Agency’s new headquarters and its proposal to open an office in the Carlingford Lough area?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The new headquarters in Derry has now been opened, and suitable accommodation in the Carlingford area has been identified. Staff to provide services directly are currently being recruited, and they will be in place in the coming months. In the meantime services continue to be provided on an agency basis by the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the Eastern Regional Fisheries Board.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement, and I endorse what Jim Wilson said about the confusion for anglers in relation to the issue of permits and licences. Is the Minister aware of the serious situation in Lough Foyle that is threatening the shellfish industry? I welcome the fact that there is to be a draft equality scheme for the agency and that regulations are going to be in force. However, is the Minister aware that by the time the various pieces of legislation are completed and the regulations are introduced, there may not be a shellfish industry left in Lough Foyle?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware that there are problems in the Lough Foyle area and that representations have been made by local people with an interest in shellfish and the aquaculture of the area. I know that they are keen to have a say in how the licensing scheme will operate. These matters will be addressed by legislation. It is because of the level of interest being shown by local people that the legislation has been made a matter of priority. The two Departments are working with interested parties to ensure that those with an interest in the area are not disadvantaged in any way by the delay. I am aware of the difficulties. Consultation is going on with Members in the area, and I am anxious that the legislation be processed as a matter of urgency.

Mr Derek Hussey: There has been much talk of permits and legislation, but I am sure that the Minister is aware of the deep concern about illegal fishing and netting in the Foyle system. I am surprised that a body meeting to consider such matters would not be taking this issue on board. Is the Minister aware of the situation and will the Commission be taking the matter forward in future?

Ms Brid Rodgers: I am aware of the problem with poaching and illegal fishing. Recently there has been an increase in poaching. That is due to the increase in fish stocks. The Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission has been successful in seizing illegal nets and continues to be effective in preventing poaching. The Commission also acknowledges the efforts which have been made by many private river watchers in protecting fish stocks.
I appreciate the efforts of those who have to work for the Department in those areas because it is not always an easy task. This year, the rate of seizure of illegal nets has been consistent with the numbers for last year. However, there has been an increase in seizures of illegally caught salmon and sea trout. That is because there has been an increase in the fish stock in the rivers.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I too welcome the Minister’s statement. My question arises out of the considerable weight of evidence that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee has been collecting in public session — I repeat: in public session — relating to poaching in particular. The Minister’s reply to MrHussey has adequately answered my question.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, her response to my Colleague DrBirnie on the complications arising from meeting the costs of the Irish Lights Commission, which is currently subsidised by Her Majesty’s Government. What action is the Minister proposing to take to obtain from the Government of the Republic of Ireland a contribution in proportion to the cost of Irish Lights in relation to the territorial waters of the Republic of Ireland?

Ms Brid Rodgers: As I have already said, this is a matter for the UK and Irish Governments, and it is being dealt with at that level.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Will the Minister expand on the consultation arrangements put in place by the Loughs Agency and inform the Assembly on the progress in staffing the Loughs Agency to the level agreed by the North/South Ministerial Council?

Ms Brid Rodgers: The Loughs Agency is currently developing a formal procedure for consulting customers and other parties with an interest in the work of the Agency in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. As part of that process, the agency recently invited interested parties to suggest how it should establish consultation arrangements to ensure that interested parties are given the opportunity to provide input to agency decisions.
In relation to the progress made in staffing, the Loughs Agency is currently recruiting river watchers in the Carlingford area and administrative staff and biologists in the Foyle area. The agency is also arranging for the posts of resource officer and development officer to be filled on a temporary basis by secondment.

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Brid Rodgers: That the Second Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill (NIA9/99) be agreed.
This Bill proposes to amend the Fisheries (Northern Ireland) Act 1966 on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Both Departments have powers under that Act, following the split in fisheries functions after devolution.
Broadly speaking, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has retained responsibility for sea fisheries and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is now responsible for inland fisheries. Since the amendments were proposed before devolution, it has been agreed that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will take the lead in bringing a single Bill to the Assembly on behalf of both Departments rather than each Department bringing separate Bills.
I will detail all of the proposed amendments in my opening speech. My Colleague MrMcGimpsey will make the closing speech.
Changes to the existing legislation are considered necessary to allow the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to regulate the collection of wild shellfish, which are a natural resource, from the foreshore and to use fisheries regulatory powers to conserve and enhance the environment. Collection of wild shellfish from the foreshore of Strangford Lough for commercial purposes has been increasing in recent years. During 1999 one individual used a mechanical harvester towed by a tractor to extract quantities of shellfish for onward sale. It is estimated that for a four-week period, beginning in mid-August, about four tonnes per day was collected. That is a substantial operation.
Conservation bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust have raised concerns with the Department about the potential ecological effects of ongoing extraction at this rate, particularly the impact on wildlife on the foreshore.
A number of bird species are dependent on a continuous rich supply of wild shellfish as food to maintain populations, particularly during winter months. It is too late to take action when the damage has been done and the bird population has been lost. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development views the need to regulate the collection of wild shellfish as vital to ensuring the ecological balance is maintained in order to conserve wildlife on the foreshore. There is evidence to support this.
Similar mechanical harvesting took place in Scotland in the early 1990s. In 1994 the opportunity was taken to amend legislation there to allow the regulation of such collection. In addition, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is proposing to amend the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to bring Northern Ireland into line with the wider powers now available under Great Britain legislation to allow regulation of fishing for environmental reasons.
Legislation in Great Britain was amended in 1995 to ensure that regulators there could protect the marine and aquatic environment to ensure compliance with the EC Habitats Directive. A parallel duty was imposed in Northern Ireland under conservation regulations made by the Department of Environment in 1994.
However, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development does not have specific power to regulate sea fishing for environmental purposes. The proposed amendment would specifically empower the Department to do that. A parallel amendment to another section of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which I will describe later, will give the Fisheries Conservancy Board similar regulatory powers in relation to salmon. Further amendments to the Act are proposed which will make it an offence to contravene regulations made under the powers referred to above and will ensure that the necessary enforcement powers exist to enable authorised officers of the Department to enforce any such regulations. They may board and examine vehicles and equipment used in fishing and, when appropriate, seize and dispose of such vehicles or equipment.
In addition, the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to take the following powers. It is proposed that restrictions which have the effect of prohibiting trade in salmon roe obtained from fish farms be lifted. Salmon roe is a viable product particularly in view of Northern Ireland’s disease-free status. The amendment to the Act will allow trade in spawn produced at a fish farm for salmon production for human consumption or for stock enhancement. However, it will remain illegal to sell spawn obtained from wild salmon.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure also proposes investing the Fisheries Conservancy Board with powers to control the removal of materials such as gravel from river beds. This is an important conversation measure designed to preserve spawning beds. It is considered necessary for the protection of increasingly threatened fish habitats. Gravel constitutes a key component of fishery habitats and is necessary for successful spawning. Removal of gravel from riverbeds has resulted in a significant deterioration in Northern Ireland’s fisheries and the proposed amendment will afford protection to this habitat.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to streamline the administrative process by dispensing with the requirement to obtain Department of Finance and Personnel agreement each time it varies charges for fishing permits for fishing the public angling estate. This approval is not required for other charges, and the Department of Finance and Personnel is content with the proposed change. The Department will publish its permit fees at the beginning of each season.
The Department also wishes to give powers to the Fisheries Conservancy Board (FCB) to issue licences at reduced rates to certain classes of person, such as the disabled. These powers will give the board scope to be flexible and sensitive to the needs of different groups in society.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure proposes to amend section 26 of the Act in two respects. First, it wishes to enable the FCB to make by-laws in respect of anything relating to the management and protection of fisheries. This power will, in particular, allow the implementation of a salmon carcass tagging scheme, which is designed to improve the management and conservation of wild salmon and sea trout stocks. Parallel schemes are being introduced by the relevant fisheries conservation agencies throughout the island of Ireland. Other agencies already have appropriate powers for the introduction of tagging, and it only remains for the FCB to be invested with the enabling powers to allow it to do likewise. Secondly, the amending clause provides the FCB with powers to regulate salmon fishing for environmental purposes. This parallels the proposal being sought by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to regulate sea fisheries for environmental purposes.
The final amendment relates to powers available to the FCB following a pollution incident. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure wishes to strengthen the powers of the FCB to reinstate polluted waters and to recover the full cost of this from the polluter. Reinstatement will include restocking, restoration and enhancement of fish habitats to pre-pollution levels. FCB’s powers are at present limited purely to restocking. The effects of pollution go beyond the loss of fish evident in a fish kill. While restocking could supplement fish stocks lost to pollution, reinstatement would take into account the other physical and biological effects necessary to restore a fishery as a biodiverse habitat, such as invertebrate and plant recovery and habitat restoration.
Members will note that the financial and explanatory memorandum has been amended. Originally when this Bill was drafted it was4 felt that the FCB would take on the additional work proposed in this legislation through reorganisation and internal efficiencies. It is now unlikely that the board will be able to meet the cost from its own resources and, therefore, some additional funding may need to be found, but we believe that this will not, relatively speaking, be significant.
My Colleague, Mr McGimpsey, has also written to the Chairman of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee, Mr ONeill, advising him of a review of the functions of the FCB in the light of the changes following devolution.
I ask the Assembly to support this Second Stage motion, which will allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome this legislation. However small, it is at least a start. There are huge challenges facing both Ministers with regard to the health of fishing and angling in Northern Ireland. I often think that the health of rivers and lakes is a clear indication of the health of the environment in general. They are almost like the lungs in a body.
This year we have experienced some of the worst examples of pollution. They have occurred with such regularity that when the statistics are pulled together at the end of the year, I imagine they will show that it has been one of the worst years in the last 40 or 50. We have major challenges ahead.
There are references to the foreshore in clauses1and2. Part of the existing problem in relation to the harvesting of shellfish is the exploitative way in which it has been carried out in Strangford Lough in the example quoted by the Minister. One thing that needs to be clarified — and I am not sure if it is clarified sufficiently in the Bill — is the definition of "foreshore".
We should all welcome clause5, which will allow the tagging scheme to come into effect in Northern Ireland. Some time ago an arrangement was made between the Department here and the fishing authorities in the South of Ireland for an all-Ireland tagging scheme to regulate and control the terrible poaching and misuse of our wild fish stocks. However, it was not possible to introduce this tagging scheme fully in Northern Ireland because of legislative arrangements. We should all welcome this clause, as it will introduce appropriate by-laws to facilitate the implementation of the salmon carcass tagging scheme. Having that throughout the island will be a considerable advance which will be welcomed greatly by those in angling and environmentally concerned bodies who wish to see changes.
Clause7 concerns the reinstatement of polluted waters. As I have already outlined, there is great concern about this summer’s events. It is to be welcomed that the word has been changed from "restocking" to "reinstatement", for, as MinisterRodgers has pointed out, there is much more to do than simple restocking after a river has been polluted or poisoned to the extent that all life has been destroyed. Restocking without providing the ecosystem on which the fish can survive is not sufficient.
I should like to ask whether the Department has given any thought to ensuring that native stock can be held for use in reinstating and reinvigorating particular stretches of polluted water. This is of great concern, for some restocking schemes have in the past used fish alien to the local area, a practice which was not very successful. When considering reinstatement we should be thinking of a much more comprehensive approach encompassing issues such as introducing native stock to a particular area or river network. It also begs the question of the collection, preservation and storage of sufficient amounts of such stock to be available whenever these unfortunate disasters occur.
We are all concerned about the sea fisheries. Although the remit of our Committee covers only inland areas, sea fishing clearly has a big impact on stocks of wild salmon and sea trout coming in and out of river systems. I should like to hear the Minister state clearly what the current position is on the regulation of sea fisheries for environmental purposes, and why it is considered necessary to regulate them. There is still much work for us in this area.
We have come under international pressure, particularly from countries such as Iceland, which has fished north Atlantic salmon stocks and would dearly love to do so again. It has not, however, because of the environmental impact it was having. It seems odd, therefore, that local countries will continue to fish those stocks. We need to address the emergent problem of fishing north Atlantic stocks.
I welcome this stage of the Bill and look forward to its next stage.

Mr George Savage: I welcome the Minister’s comments, but does she have the staff to police this?
It is a welcome boost for tourism and agri-tourism. There is a great opportunity for Northern Ireland if we can bring our waterways up to standard and protect them — especially for fishing — as we have a great shoreline. If we can get our part right, the quality and image that will be put forward across tourism will be admired. We have such a bad image. We have to improve the image of our fishing. The opportunities are tremendous but I am worried about whether the Minister has the staff to police this.

Mr Jim Shannon: By and large, we endorse the amendments to the Bill. There are a couple of concerns, specifically about clause 1, which relates to the foreshore. Many people are concerned about the dredging taking place in Strangford Lough, which has had a detrimental effect. It has led to erosion. Many refer to it as the rape of Strangford Lough. We are all aware that Strangford Lough is of international environmental importance. The fact that there are some changes in the Bill to ensure that the dredging and scraping of the foreshore to get the shellfish is discontinued is to be welcomed. At the same time, we have to get a balance between the environment and local fishing needs and interests. We look for assurance from the Minister that what we have today is the correct balance — that environmental interests do not override fishing interests.
I would also make the Minister aware that, along with mechanical dredging, we have people in the Ards and south Down areas who regard the harvesting of shellfish as a traditional job they have done over many years. Can the Minister assure those people that they will still be able to do that? In some cases, those people are in the low wage bracket and they supplement their income by taking some shellfish. This is fine, as long as the shellfish population is there to sustain it.
The Department has also issued a booklet entitled ‘Intertidal Zone Shell-Fish Harvesting’, which I understand has been withdrawn. Some fishing bodies are concerned that they have not been consulted on the matter. We want to find out about that today.
In clause 3 we have an example of changes that need to be made. The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee recently asked for a change of wording. That change is important because "to sell, purchase or knowingly have in their possession" would be the new interpretation. If that were the case, it would prevent circumstances where people have found themselves in possession of the spawn or the fry through no fault of their own. Spawn are small and worm-like, and able to get into and out of fish farms.
I welcome the rewording of clause 7 to refer to reinstatement rather than restocking. That is very important. Restocking is a superficial way of addressing the wrong that has taken place. Just putting more fish in does not get us back to where we were. Reinstatement means that the habitat will be put back in order, so as to sustain the reintroduced fish. Reinstatement means the habitat, the banks, the water itself and the contributing waters as well. Those are all very important.
Pollution is one of our greatest problems. My own Committee is taking submissions at the moment, and each and every group that comes forward highlights pollution as one of its greatest concerns. We must also look at policing. It is not just a matter of having the words and having the legislation and having it all down on paper. We must have the manpower or the womanpower to enforce it. Who will police it? Will staff be made available to ensure that polluted waters are reinstated and those responsible are made amenable?
Clause 5 relates to the power of the board to make by-laws. That is a welcome introduction that will go some way to addressing what is a very dear issue to the people in North Antrim, and indeed to fishermen throughout the Province, and that is the stock of salmon. I hope that that will ensure that our stock of salmon will be enhanced and increased. That is important.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Bill. I am certain that it will make some impact on the disastrous state of our inland waterways, loughs and seas. As Mr ONeill said, the Committee is currently inquiring into the issue of fisheries. Most of those who have given evidence paint a dismal picture of the difficulties facing our anglers and those who are trying to maintain the environment and the purity of our water.
I welcome that part of the Bill that addresses the issue of polluted waters, but we need more and we need it urgently. Witnesses from various angling clubs have told us that the inland waterways are polluted almost beyond recovery. Pollution is threatening the entire marine life of the rivers. We hear every week of various pollution incidents, whether caused by farmers, gravel extractors, hydroelectric schemes or irresponsible people. Salmon stocks — fish stocks in general — have been so seriously depleted that one wonders whether legislation at this stage will be enough to address the very serious state of our rivers and inland waterways.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be of benefit to Members if you were to explain why the Minister of Agriculture is making legislation for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I hope that it is not a question of one Department poaching from another.

Mr Speaker: On the issue of fishing, I suspect that the Departments will be particularly careful about the question of "poaching". This Bill clearly has elements relating to the responsibilities of both the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development explained that she would be opening the Second Reading debate while the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure would make the winding-up speech. It would be particularly surprising, given the Member’s party, if he were to object to co-operation between the two Ministers.

Mr David Ford: I am not sure how to follow that one. This is a serious problem, because these issues affect both Departments. It will not be easy for those of us on the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee to deal competently with further stages of this legislation when our Colleagues in Culture, Arts and Leisure have the expertise in certain aspects of it. Despite reservations, I give a broad welcome to the principle of the Bill. It is clear that most of the proposed measures are overdue.
The Minister highlighted the fact that foreshore protection has been part of legislation in Great Britain for five years. However, Strangford Lough, which is supposedly protected to the highest UK and European standards, has been subjected to a kind of tractor trawling operation through a site of special scientific interest and a Ramsar site in the interests of dredging up shellfish. This must be stopped, and stopped speedily.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by MrShannon about people who traditionally farmed for shellfish in that area. However, I do not see how driving a tractor and dredging up everything in sight can be described as a traditional fishing method. Clause3, which refers to the protection of spawning beds, is clearly necessary, although MrONeill has highlighted the problem of potentially alien species being introduced.
I wish to ask questions later, in relation to salmon roe, about what measures will be taken to prevent alien species being introduced to inappropriate places. That falls within the area of responsibility of both Departments. Clause7 — which stresses reinstatement rather than restocking — is a laudable aspiration, although I wonder how it will be carried out. Considering all the micro-flora and micro-fauna required to fully restock a river, it seems that to merely insert a clause in a Bill saying that people — who may go bankrupt in the meantime — can be charged for the necessary cost of reinstatement, is a little naive. That will not solve the problems. To suggest that this can be done at minimal cost to the public purse is also somewhat naive.
Do the two Departments feel that the powers given to them under the proposed clause7 will be adequate? In the light of it, how do they propose to go about the restocking and the full reinstatement? It is clear that the powers of the Fisheries Conservancy Board are limited. We welcome clause5, which will increase those powers, but it impinges on the resources that I have mentioned. As the Minister mentioned, there is also the issue of how similar powers will be applied to the Foyle and Carlingford systems. We need to ensure that the whole of Northern Ireland — indeed, the whole island — is given protection at the same level. There are some detailed questions to be asked, but I welcome the Bill in principle.

Mr Speaker: The Member touched upon the question that was raised as a point of order by his Colleague. I remind the House that, under Standing Orders, if a Committee is dealing with a matter that is clearly also a matter of interest to another Committee, there is a requirement to consult. Precisely how to do that in the conduct of the Committee Stage of the Bill is not an easy matter. It is much more straightforward in terms of investigation. Nevertheless, the requirement for consultation is there. I am sure that this will be undertaken by the Committee on which the Member sits.

Mr Jim Wilson: It may be advisable for me to declare an interest, as Members are looking at a piece of legislation where it could be argued by some that my views represent those of angling organisations and pressure groups. I welcome the Bill, and I see nothing in it that concerns me a great deal. However, there are two matters that I would like to refer to.
First, I refer to clause3. This clause provides the Fisheries Conservancy Board with powers to control the removal of material from rivers by making it an offence to remove material from the bed of a river without their prior consent. Does this apply to Drainage Division, which over the years — and some might say that it is still happening — has canalised our rivers? This has left them with 45º banks that almost require anglers to have one long leg and one short one to fish them. It has removed riverside vegetation, flora and fauna, and left the rivers in a terrible state. If Drainage Division does not comply, will it be fined? That is a very interesting question.
Referring to clause 5, all the angling media forecast that salmon tagging would be introduced over a year ago when the Department and the Fisheries Conservancy Board looked at the issue. However, it was discovered that the Fisheries Conservancy Board did not have the funds to introduce salmon tagging. I believe that the Chairperson of the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee will agree with me that through our work, and through the representations made to us, people are becoming increasingly aware that the Fisheries Conservancy Board is seriously underfunded.
How can the Fisheries Conservancy Board be expected to take on the administration of the tagging scheme — welcome though it is — without serious consideration being given to increasing its funding?

Mr P J Bradley: My Colleague, MrONeill, sought clarification on the definition of foreshore boundaries. I would also welcome such clarification. Can the Minister advise the Assembly on the current position regarding the regulation of fishing on the foreshore? Are any changes anticipated that will remove local councils’ custodial interest in the foreshores? Under the current legislation this gives the Minister of Environment an ongoing role. I am not trying to introduce yet another Minister to the fray.

Mr Jim Wells: I strongly support the overall purpose of this Bill. Before coming to the Assembly I worked for the National Trust. That organisation campaigned vigorously for this legislation because the commercial exploitation of wild shellfish was having an extremely detrimental impact on the ecology of Strangford Lough. Indeed, it had almost become an industrial activity. We can all draw a clear distinction between someone with a bucket and spade digging up a few shellfish on a Saturday afternoon to take them home to eat, and the harvesting of tonnes of molluscs as occurred on Strangford Lough.
What was going on was totally unsustainable, not only in terms of its detrimental impact on the wildlife but eventually on the fish stock, which would be exhausted. Therefore the individuals who were carrying out this activity were sowing the seeds of their own destruction. It must be remembered that Strangford Lough, as everyone in the Chamber knows, is an area of special scientific interest; a Ramsar site; an area of outstanding natural beauty; and a marine nature reserve. Large portions of it are national nature reserves. This area has one of the highest possible designations as far as wildlife conservation is concerned. An activity that was leading to the destruction of the mudflats could not be allowed to continue, because the mudflats are vital for the fish population. They are also vitally important feeding grounds for species such as Brent geese, wigeon, bartailed godwit and many other species for which Strangford Lough is either internationally or nationally important. I therefore strongly welcome the speed with which this Bill has been brought forward and the support that it has received.
The enactment will be vital. It must be done forcefully and very clearly. The regulations that are introduced after the passage of the Bill will have to be looked at very carefully. Officials from the Department must have clear authority to step in and prevent this destructive activity. Therefore we will be watching very carefully to see what happens.
I also ask the Department to look at some other activities in areas such as Strangford Lough and Lough Foyle which are having a very detrimental impact on the ecology. One issue is sand removal. Currently there seems to be no control whatsoever of the removal of sand from beaches in the Province.
Another issue is bait digging. Here you can have a situation where someone like the hon Member for South Antrim, Mr Jim Wilson, goes down once a year with a shovel and a plastic bucket to Larne Lough and digs a few worms to use for fishing. Apart from the animal welfare aspects of what happens to the worms, that activity in itself has no real impact on the environment. However, from my experience of Belfast Lough, bait digging seems to be happening on a very large scale. I suspect that some of that is commercial and that it is being sold on to other fishermen. We need to look at whether that should be controlled.
I also note that a large proportion of Whitepark Bay on the north Antrim coast is being carted away on the back of lorries as the sand is extracted and sold commercially. So there are other aspects of the marine environment that give cause for concern and need to be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Any sensible person would also strongly support the replacing in the Fisheries Act (NorthernIreland) 1966 of the word "restocking" with "reinstatement". Time after time the angling bodies that have contacted me have made the point that the fines handed out by the courts for instances of pollution are totally inadequate.
The FCB is very diligent in tracing the people responsible, but when they are brought to court they are fined £200 or £400, even though they may have done tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage to the fisheries of that water. If they knew that they would not only have to restock the river or the lake but also to reinstate it to what it was before the incident occurred, that would act as a major deterrent to those carrying out that activity. We need to send out a clear message that if you pollute you are liable to pay a substantial amount of money and will be expected to bring that river back to the condition it was in before you allowed the silage, oil or pesticides into the water. That could only be good news.
Does the FCB have the staffing and resources to implement this legislation? I am not certain to which Minister I am putting my question — we are in one of those difficult situations. Anyway, I would like an assurance that the extra resources will be given to the FCB to police this legislation and to ensure reinstatement.
Much time and effort will have to be put into reinstatement as opposed to restocking. With restocking, if the perpetrator pays for a specified number of fish to be put back into the river he has carried out his obligations under the 1966 Act. Under this new legislation — and it is very welcome — the situation will have to be monitored by scientists to ensure that the river is returned to its original condition. That is a totally different situation — I was going to say "kettle of fish", but maybe that is not appropriate.
We have all had very serious incidents of pollution in our constituencies. I can think of recent instances on the Upper Bann, the Moyola and the Lagan where, clearly, if this legislation had been enacted, a major scheme would have had to be carried out. Therefore can the Minister tell us what extra resources have been made available?
Apart from those few minor points, this legislation is extremely welcome.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, go raibh maith agat. I broadly welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will have a beneficial impact.
The controls that will be beneficial to habitat are welcome, as is the flexibility regarding disabled people — and maybe local people have often been left out regarding fishing in their own indigenous areas. Environmental protection of foreshores, habitat and wildlife is also a welcome benefit. I have some concerns about the shellfish and the salmon roe trading. That seems to be of benefit to a few — or is it of greater benefit?
The removal of vast amounts of sand from habitats in Lough Neagh and such places as Ballyronan by absentee landlords is another issue that has been mentioned to me. Local people are concerned about the effect that will have on the habitat of the eel population.
Clause 7 relates to pollution regulations extending to reinstatement. This is a good thing, because those who are destroying the local habitat — and it is going on at a phenomenal rate each year — deserve more than a fine. Government bodies and agencies have also been responsible for a sizeable amount of river pollution — especially of inland clear-water rivers — year after year, but they have Crown immunity. However, farmers are often cited as the only cause of pollution in most areas.
There is also the pollution caused by the attempts of vested interests to poison our drinking water through the addition of fluoride. That has been attempted in all council areas in the Six Counties but was turned down. I would not want to see that happening in the future. Fluoride is supposed to be more toxic than lead.
As regards reducing pollution, the inadequate sewerage systems in towns and over-developed areas also contribute to the pollution problem. Therefore the sewerage system is another issue that must be addressed. A holistic approach to the issue of pollution is required, taking in households, Government Departments and agriculture. It is not about laying blame at one sector; it is about going forward with anglers and local people so that they can have better waterways.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle, I am addressing the same issue as my Colleague MrMcHugh — pollution as it relates to clause 7. One of the big problems in a lot of rural areas has been that Government agencies are not prosecuted for causing pollution. Does the Minister envisage that, particularly as regards the Department of Agriculture and Rural Department, there will be some change in attitude to this? It is a bad situation that various agencies and departments seek immunity instead of facing up to their responsibilities.
A farmer can be fined for polluting a river but the Department can pollute it. In Coalisland, there was a case in which the Water Service polluted a local river. The river had just been completely restocked and reinstated by Government grants, and then the Department was responsible for polluting it. There needs to be a change of attitude. Owing to immunity, the Departments and their officials who are responsible for pollution are escaping prosecution. The legislation needs to be strengthened in relation to pollution and reinstatement.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I thank the Members for their interest in the debate. Clearly, the provisions represent important and necessary changes. There is great interest in this matter, as has been demonstrated by the number of questions and points raised. I will try to deal with all of them.
This Bill came through prior to devolution, which is why it cuts across two Departments — the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. I suspect that this will not be the last time Members will see two Ministers introducing a Bill.
Mr ONeill referred to pollution, the tagging scheme, clause 7, and the provisions for reinstatement. I know he welcomed the tagging scheme. As for reinstatement, Members will be aware that under the 1966Act, when there has been a fish kill the polluter, whoever that may be, is responsible for restocking. Under the new Bill the polluter will now be responsible for restocking the entire environment of the particular section of waterway affected with both flora and fauna. This is very important, because if you kill the ecosystem that the fish lives in, simply restocking fish is clearly not sufficient. This is an important power that the Fisheries Conservancy Board will have.
Some work is being done on retention of native fish stocks. For example, Queen’s University is undertaking genetic mapping of native trout and salmon. One area where that is active is LoughErne. Genetically pure LoughErne brown trout are being bred in a hatchery at Marble Arch. That is the only example that I am currently aware of, although I will look at the issue and see if there are any more. It is difficult for any of us to say what "genetically pure" means, but genetic mapping is going on at the minute. The example from MarbleArch caves is the only one I am aware of.
As regards the regulation of sea fisheries for environmental purposes, we are committed to adopting the precautionary approach to salmon management. We have introduced a salmon management plan which takes account of the scientific status of the salmon stocks. MrSavage asked whether the authorities have the funds to enforce the regulations. The Fisheries Conservancy Board — and a number of Members have mentioned this — does not have the funds to manage its current activities. These regulations will result in extra activities. I have bid for extra funding in the 2000 spending round. It is not a huge amount of money. This is a Department where small amounts of money can produce big outputs. This is no exception. Currently the Fisheries Conservancy Board does not have the funds. We are taking on the powers for the board to enforce this, but there will be a revenue consequence.
The Bill does not in any way interfere with the public right to shellfish extraction that MrShannon referred to — the private, traditional right that has been exercised in Strangford Lough, for example, where people will go down with a bucket and spade and extract some cockles. We are looking to deal with mechanical extraction. As my Colleague said, we estimate that in 1998 about 4tonnes of material per day was being extracted from Strangford Lough over a four-week period. That is a very substantial amount. That is the only occurrence that we are aware of at the moment, but we must regulate this because it has a knock-on effect. It knocks out the balance of the ecosystem. It is important that that is maintained and regulated. That is what this measure is designed to do.
In terms of enforcement, the Department of Agriculture is content that it has adequate resources to enforce the regulations in relation to the foreshore. The foreshore is the area between high tide and low tide marks. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for that. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is responsible for fresh water. The Fisheries Conservancy Board has inadequate resources, but the Department of Agriculture is content that it has adequate resources.
MrShannon also asked whether there would be an opportunity to consider amendments later. Of course that will happen. Only the general principles of the Bill are under discussion here. The Member will have an opportunity to see further details in due course.
MrFord asked about the responsibilities of the two Departments and how the Agriculture Committee relates to the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee. The Agriculture Committee will deal with agricultural responsibilities under the Bill. Committees may invite members of other Committees or have a joint meeting of Committees if necessary. That is an example of us learning to do what we have all talked about for many years. We are learning that this is a process of joined-up government.
MrFord also asked about the Fisheries Conservancy Board, restocking and reinstatement. I have already dealt with that.
Regarding steps being taken to introduce alien species, the Department is not doing that. A licence is required. For example, Members may note that the Department has allowed the introduction of carp to a lake outside Banbridge. That requires specific approval because carp is not a native fish. Alien fish do from time to time get in, but it is not something that the Department would be looking to take forward officially.
MrJimWilson asked whether the regulations would apply to the Drainage Division of the Department of Agriculture. As a Government agency it has Crown exemption, but we would expect it to observe the spirit of these proposals. I am waiting for a response from Drainage Division. There are two competing requirements here. One is to maintain the environment of the rivers, and the other is to ensure adequate drainage. Some rivers are designated as drainage rivers, and if Drainage Division does not carry out its work then areas of the countryside will be liable to flooding. Drainage Division has been responsible for seriously altering the natural state of the rivers. This has also seriously altered the ecology of the rivers and upset the environmental balance of the riverbanks and riverbeds.
MrWilson also referred to salmon tagging and whether the Fisheries Conservancy Board has sufficient resources. I have already referred to the Fisheries Conservancy Board. It does not have sufficient resources for salmon tagging, any more than it has sufficient resources for enforcing the pollution measures. I am aware of that. I am bidding for more resources. Currently we are empowering the Fisheries Conservancy Board. The revenue consequences will be dealt with, and that will allow these measures to be taken forward.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised. Members will forgive me if I have missed some of them. MrMcHugh and MrMolloy made points about pollution. I am well aware of that problem. Agencies and Departments do pollute on occasion. The Water Service has a case to answer there in terms of the occasional ineffectiveness of the sewerage and drainage systems. However, it appears that at least 50% of pollution incidents have an agricultural source. For example, officials have told me that last year they took 91dead sheep out of the river at the Bushmills fish station. Farmers had been throwing dead sheep into the water. That is an example of pollution that we are aware of. It is often difficult to discover who the polluters are. It can also be difficult to discover areas of pollution because one of the means of detection is dead fish floating on the surface of the river, and if the river is badly polluted it will not support fish. If pollution occurs, there are no fish to die and come to the surface to give the evidence.
I conclude by thanking Members for their contributions to the debate, and support the motion moved by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill (NIA 9/99) be agreed.

Assembly: Committee of the Centre

Resolved:
That Mr Conor Murphy shall replace MrMitchelMcLaughlin on the Committee of the Centre. — [Mr Maskey]

Assembly: Regional Development Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Pat McNamee shall replace MrConorMurphy on the Committee for Regional Development. — [Mr Maskey]

Assembly: Business Committee

Resolved:
That Mr Nigel Dodds be appointed to the Business Committee. — [Mr Gibson]

Assembly Commission

Resolved:
That Mr Jim Wells be appointed to the Assembly Commission. — [Mr Dodds]

Assembly: Points of Order

Mr James Leslie: Relating to the questioning on the Minister’s statement on the North/South Ministerial Council this morning, MrSpeaker, at an earlier sitting you ruled that it was not in order to take points of order during the questioning on Ministers’ statements. I was ruled out of order on that matter. Since the House resumed in September I have noticed some recidivism by both yourself and your Deputy. I wonder if you could clarify your ruling on this matter.

Mr Speaker: You are absolutely right on both counts — that we said we did not want to take points of order, and that we are recidivists. We will, having returned from the summer recess, return to our former good ways, as, I trust, will the rest of the Members. There are occasions when it is in the interests of the House to take points of order, because it sometimes clarifies matters in a helpful way, though points of order in this House rarely tend to do that. We will try to keep alert to those which do.

Fuel Costs

Mr Roy Beggs: I beg to move.
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the escalating price of fuel and calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take measures to lessen the impact of high fuel costs on the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and its people, and to encourage other EU member states to bring their tax on fuel into line with that of neighbouring countries to allow fair competition and to discourage the illegal transportation of fuel across national boundaries.
I thank Nigel Dodds for agreeing to sponsor this motion along with me. I would also like to thank my Ulster Unionist Assembly Colleague Danny Kennedy, who worked with me on my original motion.
I first discussed the possibility of a debate two weeks ago. Since then the issue of high fuel taxes has been driven to the top of the United Kingdom’s national political agenda. I am pleased that fuel distribution has resumed in Great Britain and that the protestors have ended their campaign, retaining the moral high ground and with public opinion on their side. The Labour Government appears to be in listening mode now. Neither the Labour Government nor Labour MPs have the same susceptibility to pressure here in Northern Ireland. Disruption to the economy was estimated to be costing £250 million per day and would eventually have brought the country to its knees. Given this and our own economic background, it would be neither appropriate nor effective to replicate such action in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the work of the fuel crisis group, which was hastily formed last week. I see some of its members in the Gallery today. The group represents a wide spectrum of Northern Ireland industry, including CBI Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Petrol Retailers Association, the Oil Promotion Federation, the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation and fish producers’ organisations.
I hope that this debate, together with lobbying and the media event that I understand is being organised outside, will help focus our discontent about high fuel costs within Northern Ireland. I strongly support the view that there should be no traffic disruptions in Northern Ireland.
In the United Kingdom, petrol and diesel are supplied at competitive prices, before tax, compared to those in other European countries. Our Chancellor then applies the highest fuel taxes of any country in the European Union. We end up paying the highest fuel costs in the EU. Including VAT, tax accounts for some 75% of pump prices. Is it any wonder that the electorate does not believe Mr Blair when he tries to blame others for the high cost of fuel?
Some Members have pointed out that fuel tax is a reserved matter, but this debate provides a democratic outlet for discussion within Northern Ireland. Furthermore, we might be able to contribute to the change that is starting to happen in the rest of the United Kingdom. This same motion could very easily be put before the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. That would build pressure on Labour Back-Benchers. I have received cross-party support in the Assembly. Should the motion be passed, I intend to seek support from other devolved bodies. This would undoubtedly have some effect.
The Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party in Westminster, Roy Beggs MP, has confirmed that he will seek support for an early-day motion on this issue. The campaign may build from the regional Assemblies, gather cross-party support at Westminster and put pressure on the Government. It is important that we continue to add to this pressure to reduce the high fuel tax that distorts trade in Northern Ireland and encourages smuggling in this part of the United Kingdom. The Department of Environment may have some role to play. I have spoken to the Minister, Mr Foster, and some members of the departmental Committee.
I have been working on this issue for over a year. I highlighted the fact that the Department of Environment, which licenses road hauliers in Northern Ireland, had never revoked a licence as a result of smuggling.
We wish to ensure that there is fair competition in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the Department has the power to consider the standing and reputation of an operator when issuing a licence. It would be in order to reassess whether some operators who have been caught smuggling should be allowed to trade legitimately in Northern Ireland.
On a wider issue, linkage between the various Departments is necessary. At present, if a haulier is caught smuggling, no record is made of his company’s involvement and nothing appears on his licence, provided that the fine is quickly paid, and often it is paid in cash. The Departments need to liase with Customs and Excise, which should pass such information on. The Committee should also be dealing with this issue.
Driving around Northern Ireland, I occasionally notice signposts advertising diesel at exceptionally low prices, lower than our retailers can even buy it at. Is greater enforcement needed of the legislation on the licensing of retailers? There are safety and environmental issues involved as well as the problem of the illegal trading of fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland.
As fuel becomes prohibitively expensive, we all avoid unnecessary journeys, but protecting the environment is a Europe-wide — indeed, a global — issue. If fuel pricing is to be used to protect the environment, such a policy must also be adopted by our neighbouring European states, and this point is reflected in the motion.
However, pricing differentials which encourage drivers to travel considerable distances needlessly to buy cheaper fuel is wasting the Earth’s resources, unnecessarily damaging the environment and contributing to traffic congestion. Pricing differentials also encourage smugglers to transport fuel tanks outside our natural port hinterland, which wastes precious hydrocarbon fuel. It is very expensive to carry heavy goods any considerable distance by road, whether from Cork or from Dublin — other areas from which fuel is imported to Northern Ireland. It is a waste of resources for smugglers to use fuel to travel that extra distance. It is in the interests of the economy that fuel should be efficiently distributed from the port of Belfast to our natural hinterland.
Pricing differentials also encourage smuggling by unsafe home-made fuel transporters, which put both the public and the environment at risk. This was highlighted about a year ago when a container was found in the Banbridge area. It was a curtain-sided vehicle carrying a man-made steel tank which contained illegal fuel. The tank was badly constructed, the vehicle was overloaded, and the brakes went on fire.
I asked an environmentalist to examine the motion carefully, as it has the potential to be both environmentally neutral and beneficial. Pollution must be addressed evenly and at a European level; the burden must not simply be placed on British taxpayers here in Northern Ireland. There is no environmental benefit to be gained from the current situation in which vehicles on our roads are burning cheap diesel, sourced from other European countries, to the disadvantage of local hauliers.
The high cost of fuel, which is out of line with the cost to our European competitors, is having a detrimental effect on the Northern Ireland economy and the welfare of the citizens of this part of the United Kingdom. I will attempt to highlight some of the problems caused to our economy, to our manufacturers, retailers, hauliers, small businesses, farmers, rural communities and fishermen.
Over the past 10years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has increased duties on unleaded petrol by 150·5% from 19·49p per litre to 48·82p per litre. Diesel has been similarly affected.
However, in the Irish Republic — our immediate European neighbour — duty in March was only 29·45p per litre and 25·62p per litre respectively. High fuel costs add to distribution costs, which must be added to the price of products. This affects every business in Northern Ireland. Our products are becoming less competitive and jobs are being lost. As we are a peripheral part of the European Union and of the United Kingdom, the cost of haulage is more significant to the people of Northern Ireland than to those in many other parts of the European Union. We are doubly disadvantaged.
In Northern Ireland there is no real alternative to the road haulage industry. How else can a container be moved from the docks in Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint or Londonderry to an industrial estate? Rail transport is more efficient for longer distances, but the relatively short distances from our ports make it impractical. Diesel accounts for 25% to 40% of hauliers’ operating costs and so can determine profitability. High fuel costs in Northern Ireland only encourage drivers and hauliers to obtain cheaper fuel.
Vehicle excise duty also discriminates against hauliers here. A 40-tonne articulated lorry is currently charged £3,950 per year for road tax, while hauliers from the Republic of Ireland — with whom our drivers must compete and who can travel on our roads freely as part of the European Union — are paying only £1,250 to their Government. This differential is forcing Northern Ireland hauliers out of business and causing others to register in the Republic of Ireland. This has no environmental gain and simply exports Northern Ireland jobs and businesses.
The Petrol Retailers Association has highlighted the difficulties being faced by its members. Deliveries of forecourt supplies have dramatically reduced over the past six years, down 52·79% in petrol deliveries and 41·56% in diesel deliveries. To appreciate the scale of the problem it must be remembered that since 1994 there has been a 21% increase in the number of registered vehicles in Northern Ireland. Where is all the extra fuel coming from?
The decline is worsening. According to the latest figures published by the Institute of Petroleum, in the first quarter of this year there was a 45·7% decline in deliveries of diesel into Northern Ireland compared to the first quarter of 1999, and an overall 33·9% decline in oil deliveries. Huge tonnages of fuel must be winding across border roads. Potentially a quarter of a milliontonnes of oil products during the first quarter of this year, when compared to last year, have come by other means. With the approximate halving of turnover by volume, it is not surprising that many petrol stations in Northern Ireland have been closing. This loss of turnover is estimated to be costing the British taxpayer £310million per annum as excise duty is not being paid to the British Exchequer.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
The rural community in Northern Ireland, along with farmers and fishermen, is already struggling with reductions in earnings. The additional fuel costs add to overheads and cause difficulties to the rural economy by adding further transportation costs.
What can the Government do? Following the increase in world oil prices, NorthSea oil revenue has contributed billions of extra pounds to exchequer funds.
I recently received advice from a local member of the Federation of Small Businesses that economic research shows that a cut of up to 8p per litre would have no implication for the Exchequer because of the additional revenue.
I also draw attention to comments in paragraph 62 of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report published on 29 July 1999:
"There is no doubt that the differential in fuel prices, across the land border in the island of Ireland, has serious consequences for fuel supplies and road hauliers. It is a wide problem, in that, besides distorting trading patterns, it appears to have become a means of funding for paramilitaries and racketeers. It is therefore damaging the social fabric of Northern Ireland."
This issue goes much further than our retailers and road hauliers. It is one which the Assembly will have to address through its Committees, and I encourage Members to apply pressure to the Secretary of State and the British Cabinet.
I advise the Assembly of a comment in paragraph 57 of the report, under the heading "Recommendations":
"The Committee recommends that Government investigate further the experience of other EU members in dealing with the problems of price and duty differentials across national borders in relation to road fuels."
That concept is contained in the motion. The same paragraph states
"It may be that at a European level a consensus might emerge on measures to mitigate the impact of road fuel duty and the price differentials between Member States which are both effective and consistent with the principles of the Single Market."
We will be following the deliberations of the Northern Ireland Select Committee on this issue.
Our Department should also be examining operators’ licences if they are found to be smuggling. That is something our Minister can do. I urge the Department to investigate suggestions made by the Select Committee that we should be examining the viability of a licensing system for all fuel retailers in Northern Ireland.
I have spoken to the Minister, Mr Foster, and to some Ulster Unionist Colleagues on the Environment Committee, and I hope that they will pursue the matter. I intend to do so myself through questions.
The current high cost of fuel is out of line with those of our European competitors and is clearly affecting our economic well-being. I urge the Members to support the motion.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I thank MrBeggs for the way in which he moved this important motion. We both tabled motions on the issue of high fuel taxes and duty, and I was happy on this occasion to co-operate with the Member.
I do not intend to go over all the issues ably raised by him but want to highlight a number of them. Many Members will want to speak on these issues. First, this is not an issue for which this Assembly or any Member has any responsibility. That has not stopped politicians from Northern Ireland raising such issues in the past, and I am sure that it will not stop us in the future. Although responsibility lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government at Westminster, it is extremely important that we should be having this debate and have this proposal passed this afternoon to give an outlet to the grievance felt by many sectors in our community.
This issue has touched virtually everyone, and there has been a great deal of support for the motivation of those who have taken action to highlight this issue on the mainland.
It is important that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister hear directly and clearly from the elected Members of this Assembly, on behalf of all the people in Northern Ireland, how strongly we feel about the situation regarding high duty and taxes on fuel and how that affects this part of the United Kingdom.
While, thankfully, we did not suffer from the protests that were held across the rest of the United Kingdom, that should not disguise the fact that in Northern Ireland we are worse off in terms of the impact of high fuel costs on our people and economy. As MrBeggs mentioned, the fact that the Northern Ireland fuel crisis group has been set up quickly and has been very active indicates just how important this issue is for business, trade and other sectors of the economy in Northern Ireland. Representatives have been extensively lobbying the parties.
The situation is worse here because we have higher fuel prices than other parts of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole has the highest fuel prices in the developed world. For petrol, it is 10p per litre more than in the next-highest country, which is France. We in Northern Ireland, as many of our newspapers have shown over the years, are in many cases paying higher prices than the average in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Chancellor explained that oil prices had gone up to $35 a barrel, and the blame was being put on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the oil producers. However, the real villain is the Chancellor. The real villain is the taxman. Three quarters of the price of a litre of fuel is being handed over to the Treasury.
Added to the fact that we have such a high rate of taxation in the UK, we have the scandal of double taxation. For each litre of fuel, 48·8p goes in excise duty. Value added tax (VAT) is added not only to the cost of the fuel but to the duty as well. VAT is being levied on the cost of the fuel and the excise duty. You do not have to be a mastermind to work out that that is adding between 7p and 8p per litre to the price of fuel. It is a tax on tax and it is something that I always understood was anathema as far as taxation policy is concerned. Clearly, the Chancellor should do something about that iniquity.
Perhaps I am a bit old-fashioned, but one problem is that for many of us, who are used to dealing in price per gallon, the price per litre actually disguises the real rise in price. We are almost at £4 per gallon. Some have said we are heading towards five pounds per gallon. When it is put in terms of price per litre it does not seem so bad — 2p on a litre of petrol. However, that translates into almost 10p per gallon. Every time prices go up, you see the real cost of fuel in Northern Ireland and the UK.
The other major problem already highlighted is that we have a land boundary with another member state of the European Union. Cheaper fuel is available in the Irish Republic because of lower tax and duty rates and also because of the differential in the currency valuations.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome the fact that the Member is highlighting the particular difficulties faced by our petrol retailers. More than 60petrol stations have already closed and many are facing closure. Does he agree that unless HerMajesty’s Government address this issue properly they will be creating an exclusion zone for petrol stations within our own border?

Mr Nigel Dodds: The Member is absolutely right, and I am sure that this issue will be highlighted by other Members. I understand that the most recent figures show that petrol sales by Northern Ireland retailers are down 42% on last year. That is a staggering figure that illustrates the real problem for petrol retailers, particularly in border areas, where traders are finding it impossible to continue to trade.
The increases in duty and taxes over the last decade reinforce the point. Petrol duty in the Irish Republic increased by 6% over that period, whereas in Northern Ireland it rose by 150%. Between 1990 and 2000, diesel increased by 15% in the Irish Republic, but in Northern Ireland it rose by 157%, so diesel now costs 83% more in Northern Ireland than it does in the Republic. The result of this is that business people are going southwards to obtain cheaper fuel, jobs are being lost and revenue is being lost to the exchequer. We also have the very serious problem of the smuggling that is lining the pockets of paramilitary groups, criminal groups and others.
While many of us feel that more could and should be done to tackle the problem in terms of Customs and Excise and police resources, clearly we will always have the problem while we have this massive cost differential. Therefore the solution lies with the Chancellor, who should take steps to do something about these tax differentials.
The University of Ulster report of February 2000, which I have looked at, indicates that 3,000 to 6,000 jobs have already been lost in Northern Ireland because of this problem, with revenue of up to £100 million having gone southward. While we have a differential of 23p per litre on petrol and 29p per litre on diesel, there is no doubt that the problem is going to get worse.
Mr Beggs mentioned that we are a peripheral part of the United Kingdom and of Europe. We are therefore highly dependent on road transport and face higher transport costs. The announcement that a new working party is being set up in the Irish Republic by the Irish Prime Minister to look at the rates of excise duty in the South will send alarm bells ringing in Northern Ireland, because the problem that is bad now has the potential to get even worse.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at the question of tax he will have to bear in mind the impact his tax policy will have on the regions. He cannot simply ignore the fact that we in Northern Ireland face the problem of sharing a land boundary — a problem which does not arise in England, Scotland or Wales. As a result of these problems, as has already been mentioned, our haulage industry also faces problems. Thirty-five per cent of its operating costs goes on fuel duty; it faces vehicle excise duties; it contributes in terms of operator licence fees, VAT, income tax and corporation tax; and, sooner or later — if we are to have a viable road haulage industry in Northern Ireland — the Chancellor will have to act. The question is whether we will have an industry left. Or will it be permitted to go to the wall?
We have already mentioned the position of petrol retailers, who face severe problems in Northern Ireland, particularly in border areas. When we talk about border areas we must consider the fact that business people in Northern Ireland are becoming prepared to travel further and further to get cheaper fuel. This is a creeping problem. I know from talking to some petrol retailers who are suffering, and who are located many miles from the border, that something has got to be done about that distortion of trade and competition issue.

Mr Edwin Poots: Is the Member aware that about three quarters of a billion litres of the fuel used here is bought outside the Province, with a loss to the economy of about £460 million? The high-taxation policy is detrimental to jobs and reduces the amount of revenue that is raised in the Province.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I think that all Members would agree, and I thank the Member for drawing those points to our attention.
I also wish to speak on behalf of the hard-pressed motorist. It is sometimes unfashionable to point out the difficulties that motorists face. The reality is that for many people in Northern Ireland — the disabled, the elderly and people in rural areas — there is no viable alternative to using their private cars. The fact that only 15% of the tax on petrol and fuel goes into public transport infrastructure in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom brings home a point about which many motorists and other people who buy fuel feel very strongly — namely, that they do not believe they are getting a proper return in the shape of money being invested in the public transport and transport infrastructure of the Province.
Points have been highlighted about agriculture and the rural economy. Our fishing industry is no different, having seen a 155% increase in the cost of fuel for the fleet. That means that 30% of a vessel’s entire earnings are now taken up by fuel costs. There is another issue which we should not forget, that of the heating oil and kerosene used by home owners and tenants in Northern Ireland. Its price has escalated rapidly, on average going up 115% over the last two years, so that at the moment 900 litres costs £215. Only 5% of homes in the rest of the United Kingdom are centrally heated by oil, whereas here the figure is over 50%. Once again, one sees the massive impact in Northern Ireland.
What is to be done? It is essential that the Chancellor of the Exchequer act to bring down excise duty — and, by extension, VAT — on fuel. He says he needs money for health and schools and all the other major projects the Government have. We accept that there must be major investment in those areas as well as others. However, the reality is that he is reaping a windfall. The money he is getting now through excise duty and VAT is over and above that which he had already calculated and figured into his expenditure plans. He cannot therefore claim that cutting this tax will be detrimental to expenditure plans.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am sure the hon Member is aware that, at the time the Chancellor made those provisions, the price of a barrel of oil was $22. It is now $35. I think the Member will agree that the fact that Britain is also a net producer of oil, receiving additional revenue of between £4 billion and £8 billion, totally explodes the Chancellor’s figures.

Mr Nigel Dodds: That is absolutely right, and it is essential that it be pointed out. Not only is this a taxation windfall, but there are booming revenues from North Sea oil production. We have seen a massive influx into Government coffers from the mobile phone licence competition, and it is clear that the Chancellor has the room to act. There is a moral imperative for him to do so, and I hope now that instead of sympathy and nice words from the Government, action will be taken. I fear that if that is not the case the disruption we have seen across the United Kingdom will have been a picnic compared to what is to come. It is vital that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, TonyBlair, start to listen, rather than offer sympathetic, sugar-coated words. They must take action to reduce tax on fuel, and they must do it as soon as possible.

Mr Eddie McGrady: It goes without saying that all parties in the Assembly welcome and support this motion. It has two basic parts, the first being to call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the burden of fuel duty. The second element is to encourage other EU member states to bring their taxes into line with those of neighbouring countries. I should like to deal with those two issues individually, for they are separate and distinct. We must be careful not to confuse one with the other.
The events of the last week have highlighted what was already known, but perhaps not realised — the enormous effect of higher fuel costs on our economy. By "economy" I mean all the strata of society in Northern Ireland — the hauliers, the manufacturers, the fishermen, the farmers, the home fuel distributors and the road users. We are only now beginning to realise just how enormous this tax is. However, it is not a new tax; it has been going on for a considerable time.
I observed with some amusement the hypocrisy of certain previous Government spokespersons who were castigating the current Government for their dereliction of duty in imposing additional taxes. The year-on-year, tax-on-tax approach of the previous Government increased this tax enormously. The irony is that it was the Conservative Party, when it was in power, which introduced the escalator tax, over and above the excise duty, thus adding to the cost of fuel. Indeed, the last budget was the first time in years that the escalator tax factor was not applied.
That does not in any way exonerate any Government of responsibility for the position we are in today. It is extraordinary how communities throughout Europe have spontaneously and suddenly realised the position that they have been brought to as a result of oil production prices from the OPEC countries and the internally imposed problems of the revenues which successive Governments in many countries have imposed.
In Northern Ireland we suffer a double jeopardy — excise duty on fuel and a peripherality that adds to transport costs. We also suffer from the fact that we have a land border with a country that has a much lower rate of fuel tax, and that is exacerbated by the exchange rates between the punt and sterling and between the euro and sterling — two entirely different economic systems.
Many statistics have been well presented by the joint proposers of the motion. All of us can rehearse these in our subsequent contributions, but it is sufficient to emphasise them. No matter what industry you look at, you will clearly see the effect that fuel prices have had on transport, production costs, home fuels, motor cars and everything else that modern society depends on.
Much has been said about the question of the escalator tax. It was a green tax, designed to somehow assist environmental protection by taxing the motorist. It is a fraction of the excise duty and, like the old road tax which was referred to, is not even given over to environmental protection matters. It is simply another revenue-producing mechanism that increases the general taxation.
The most dramatic statistic I saw was that over the last 10years, fuel duties increased in the Republic of Ireland by 6% and in the UK by 242% — an enormous differential. We must be careful how we address that issue. It is not just as simple as some of the suggestions that have been made. Perhaps MrBeggs overemphasised the differential between the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as the main, or a substantial, cause of our problem. That is not necessarily correct. By the way, I welcome, and cannot help referring to, the fact that he is totally opposed to traffic disruption. Long may that continue in all its aspects.

Mr Robert McCartney: I thank the hon Member for permitting me to intervene.
Every citizen knows that the blockade will have an immediate and horrendous effect on our commercial base. But if nothing is done soon, those who are most grievously affected, who see their livelihoods and their businesses disappear, will come to the point where they have no alternative.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Was that a question?

Mr Robert McCartney: It was not a question. The Member invited the intervention.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I prefer to hear what a person has to say rather than let him go unheard in a sedentary position, but that is par for the course for the Member.
The target that we must concentrate on, as MrDodds said, is the exchequer in London. The tax burden we suffer in Northern Ireland is the result of successive Chancellors adding to and imposing taxes. As Mr Beggs said, three-quarters — actually, 71% — of our fuel expenditure goes to the general exchequer. That situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is difficult for Northern Ireland, susceptible as it is to the additional difficulties of peripherality and proximity to a cheaper fuel regime, to take direct action that will not be detrimental to our own economy, as well as the greater economy, including tourism.
This is not a new situation. Northern Ireland has had this problem for a very long time. I first took the issue up with the Minister responsible, Mr Adam Ingram, in March 1999. He told me that the Government was concerned about the problem and taking firm action to address it. Eighteen months later, no action whatsoever has been taken, never mind firm action.
The differential causes exceptional difficulties for trade in Northern Ireland. The oil industry itself has been decimated by these events. Here are some statistics on petrol station closures. One company has closed all 28 of its sites, another has been reduced from 28 sites to nine, another is selling three, and others are considering pulling out altogether. That is allied to the great difficulties retailers have across large areas of Northern Ireland. It is not just a border issue any longer. The differential is so great that traffic can travel a long distance and still make it profitable.
I have met Patricia Hewitt, who is the Minister responsible, and the previous Ministers, Lord Dubs and Adam Ingram. The issue has been raised in the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee as an urgent matter affecting the economy of Northern Ireland. I have taken party delegations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tragedy of it all is that nothing has moved them, for one very simple reason: in spite of the loss of revenue through smuggling, paramilitary and other criminal activities, and the additional costs incurred by Customs and Excise in increasing their staff from 23 to 35 and appointing specialist officers, it is not a significant loss to the Exchequer. The loss of revenue in Northern Ireland is not a significant loss, and therefore it does not attract their attention.
It is not an argument that we are going to win. As the proposal suggested, we have to harness our arguments with those of Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, and Members at Westminster to lobby the Government, on a nationwide basis, to reduce fuel duties and road taxes to a reasonable and acceptable level.
Only through a united, concentrated effort will an impact be made on the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Government — who will ultimately make this decision. This will not be a short-term campaign. It will be a very difficult one. I hope that it is not a disruptive one, because by disruption we inflict wounds on ourselves that we cannot afford. This can be done without disruption, and without undue militancy, but it must be done on a consistent, cohesive and collective basis. My party supports the generality of the motion and we look forward to participating with other parties in the Assembly to form a joint presentation. I hope that it will be spearheaded by the appropriate departmental Ministers in the Assembly on a strong public and international basis. Given the experiences of the last 18 months, this is the only way to bring about change. The only effective change that we can make is to have an immediate reduction.
There has been talk of waiting for the autumn Budget. That may be possible if the autumn Budget is next month. However, if that does not make a substantial, meaningful contribution to our problem, then we will have to address it in a stronger and more virulent way.
The differential between fuel duties in both North and South has been exacerbated by the currency exchange. During the Finance Bill debate, in representations to the Chancellor and his Ministers of State I asked repeatedly for a special scheme for Northern Ireland to be implemented. A scheme has been implemented along the Dutch and German border, where differentials were considerable — though not nearly as considerable as the differentials we had. At that time there was a great reluctance among the Ministers at Westminster and the Ministers in Northern Ireland to alleviate the distress that had been caused — mostly in the border areas and affecting the smaller retailers, hauliers and transport companies.
The Dutch implemented a scheme. Part of the scheme was ruled out by the European Court, which is fair enough. However, part of that scheme is still in operation. There is no justification for the British Government not introducing that part, which was tolerated and allowed to continue by the European Commission, to the border areas of Northern Ireland. That is another practical avenue where a remedy can be achieved for the additional problem that we have. Even if the taxes are reduced, they will not be reduced sufficiently to address the problem of the differential between the two countries. We need a reduction in general taxation, combined with a scheme to alleviate the contrast in the border areas.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I agree with the Member’s comments regarding the international and the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland differential. Does he agree that there is scope to use the North/South Ministerial Council to put pressure on the Dublin Government to increase some of their duties towards the UK level?

Mr Eddie McGrady: I am enthusiastic about the North/South Ministerial Council engaging on all problems affecting the whole of Ireland, North and South. I encourage it to take on as many of our problems as it can and to address them. However, to ask the Republic of Ireland Government to increase their taxes would be rather silly.
Why should we ask other Governments to impose a burden on people when we are trying to reduce the same burden for ourselves? That is the reality of the situation. You do not make a bad situation worse by creating another bad situation for your neighbour. Harmonisation on a European scale must come about, otherwise this problem will continue, not just between the North of Ireland and the Republic but also between many other countries. As has been said, difficulties already exist between Holland and Germany and several other nations.
Returning to the original point — which I must emphasise — the real problem is the 71% excise duty imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is our first target. We must not be diverted into long-term projects concerning the differentials between North and South. The lack of an exchange mechanism is an obvious long-term project to pursue, but that is of such import that we know we will have little impact if we ask the British Government to enter into the European monetary union. In the meantime, our target, which must be focused and consistent, must be reduced taxes at Westminster. My party will support the motion in all its aspects and in the terms which I have suggested to the Assembly. I look forward to a joint exercise with all the other parties in this Chamber to further the cause of duty reduction.

Mr Pat Doherty: A LeasCheann Comhairle, I welcome and support this motion. There is great concern about the escalating cost of fuel and even greater concern about the British exchequer’s attitude — an attitude which reflects no consideration of the economic effects which partition and two tax regimes have created in our country. Indeed, the North of Ireland is only an afterthought when the British Government considers finances. I believe that both the proposers of this motion also recognise this in the second half of their motion, which I read as Unionist-speak for an all-Ireland fuel policy.
Owing to the underdevelopment of the rail network and the consequent over-dependence on roads, the price of fuel is crucial in Ireland. Fuel tax, unfortunately, is a reserved matter for the British Government, but as the Assembly evolves and develops, one option which could be examined is a mileage-based or gallon-based fuel rebate system. The administration of this could be minimised by allowing rebates to be deducted from VAT or other tax liabilities. However, as long as we have two tax systems on this island, we will always experience difficulties. The uncertainty created by fuel pricing underlines again the Sinn Féin argument that what we need is an all-Ireland economy. Only then will the days of being held to ransom at the petrol pumps by the British exchequer be over.
To address these problems in the long term, the British Minister and his counterpart in Dublin should explore ways and means of harmonising tax and duty rates. While there has understandably been a focus on fuel prices at petrol pumps, we also need to recognise — and this point was brought up earlier — that high tax and duty rates also adversely affect the price of home heating oil, and perhaps that pain is felt more intensely than that felt by motorists and road hauliers.
We support and welcome this motion, and we would like to see a speedy resolution of the problem.

Mr Seamus Close: I applaud the initiative of Mr Beggs and MrDodds in bringing this very serious issue to the Floor of the House, where the elected representatives in NorthernIreland can add their voice to those demanding change. I also take the opportunity to publicly applaud the mature attitude that has been adopted by the Road Haulage Association, the Petrol Retailers Association, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry and the Ulster Farmers’ Union, which have all been involved in the fuel crisis group, the many other trade and voluntary organisations throughout Northern Ireland and the great Northern Ireland public.
In spite of the fact that we in Northern Ireland suffer more because of escalating fuel prices than those in the South of Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, there have not been any organised road blockades in Northern Ireland. That has got to be applauded. Northern Ireland has not been brought to a standstill.
Our people, particularly the various organisations to which I have referred, have used the democratic process in a determined fashion and with great dignity in an effort to get their message across. For that reason above all, we, as their elected representatives, must support them and demonstrate that somebody is listening to their plight. We must ensure that their message is transmitted with the maximum democratic clout to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Treasury and all those who hold and control the purse strings.
In some respects it could be said that the democratic process itself is on trial over this issue. If it is not seen to deliver, to listen and to deal with such causes as are currently facing it, then there are serious questions to be answered.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are on record as saying that they cannot and will not give in to blackmail, threats or blockades. As a democrat, I have sympathy with that view, but equally I firmly believe that the Government have a duty to listen to the people and to respond positively to a just cause that has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the people. This is such a cause. I challenge the Prime Minister to put our money where his mouth is and to recognise in a tangible fashion the mature attitude adopted by the people in Northern Ireland in the current crisis.
We live, as has already been said, in a peripheral society. Our fuel costs are higher than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We share a land border with another EU country where fuel tax is considerably less; thus we suffer from unfair competition. Prime Minister, if you will not give in to blackmail, you will surely reward the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland whose voice and reason have been their only weapons. Cut our fuel taxes now, or give us in Northern Ireland some form of rebate.
I also urge the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the other Ministers to take this message to Downing Street as soon as possible. The people do not want just sympathy; they want action from their democratically elected leaders.
It must also be made clear that the oil companies are not to blame for the current crisis. Nor do I accept the line that is currently being peddled that a reduction in fuel taxes would inevitably have an adverse effect upon the Health Service, education, and so on.
Britain is unique among the other European countries in that it is a net exporter of oil. I have recently seen figures to suggest that in the first half of this year alone there was a surplus of £2·5billion on the oil account.
Every time the price of crude oil rises there is a revenue bonus for the Chancellor. If he were a member of a caring Government he would have given some of this windfall back to the people and reduced the price of fuel. Why has this windfall been buried in a cloud of half-truths and presumably tucked away in some election war chest?
We have the highest petrol and diesel costs in Europe, if not the world, because we suffer from obscene taxation on fuel. As Mr Dodds pointed out, it is actually worse than that. We suffer from obscene double taxation on fuel. We are taxed on the tax that the Government levy on fuel. I was amazed to learn that the price of petrol in the United Kingdom is lower than in the USA. It is less than 18p per litre in the United Kingdom compared to over 19p in the USA, yet we pay almost £4 per gallon, whereas the price is less than £1 in the United States.
The difference is not in the profits of the oil companies or petrol retailers — they get about 1p per litre. The difference is in the tax taken by the Government — 70p to 75p. At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have the barefaced audacity to blame everybody but themselves, and to date they have even refused to listen to those who have pointed out the error of their ways.
However, I must be fair. The attempts by William Hague and his political cronies to capitalise on Labour’s difficulties is political opportunism at its worst. We all remember that it was the Tory Chancellor, Norman Lamont, who introduced the fuel duty escalator in 1993. This highway robbery was continued by Kenneth Clarke, resulting in fuel duty increasing by 5% more than inflation during the years 1993 to 1996. It was dressed up as a green tax, but I would prefer to call it a con tax.
However, the Labour Party, not to be outdone in exorbitant taxation, increased the escalator to 6% when it came to power, and the result was fuel duty going up by 10% in 1997, 10% in 1998 and another 10% in March 1999. While the Labour Government have dropped the fuel escalator, the damage has been done. I appeal for this highway robbery to stop. It is totally counter-productive, particularly in Northern Ireland, where it is killing businesses. It is killing the road haulage industry, and it is making all of us suffer unduly.
As duty is much less in the South of Ireland, there is a daily flow of vehicles travelling across the border to fill up with fuel, and, as has been mentioned, smuggling is rife. I understand that smugglers can gross as much as £35,000 per week through their illegal practices. How else can we explain that between 1994 and 1999 there was an increase of 124,694 in the number of vehicles registered in Northern Ireland, yet during the same period the amount of fuel delivered to Northern Ireland fell by 41·6%? The Treasury is losing money hand over fist through its blindness.

Mr John Kelly: Does the Member agree that the Assembly initially should have sought the ability to raise taxes at a local level?

Mr Seamus Close: As one who advocated throughout the entire talks process that we should have tax-varying powers I agree with the Member, but that is somewhat removed from the issue we are discussing. We are discussing the huge taxes being imposed on motorists and the fuel industry. Rather than seeking powers to further increase prices, we should be looking for a reduction in prices.
The Treasury is losing approximately £200 million because of the amount of fuel that could be sold here.
It is economic madness caused by a blind and arrogant Government. I direct my final comments to the Prime Minister: open your eyes and see the damage that your exorbitant taxes on fuel are causing; open your ears and listen to the hard-pressed people who are pleading for your help; open your mouth and tell us that you will act without further delay to deal with the crisis.

Mr Patrick Roche: The events of the past week have been the most momentous in the life of the Labour Administration. The characteristic response of the Prime Minister has been to misrepresent the nature of the protests and blame high fuel prices on OPEC and the oil companies. Government by spin and mendacity may have reached the end of the road. The electorate simply does not believe the Prime Minister. The Sunday Times/NOP poll of 17 September showed that 71% of the electorate blames the Government for high fuel prices and 77% does not accept the Government’s claim that there is no scope for cutting tax on fuel.
The electorate is correct on both counts. First, there is scope for a reduction in fuel tax. The Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) have calculated that the Chancellor has scope to cut duty and VAT on unleaded petrol by up to 6p per litre because of the tax windfall from higher North Sea oil prices. That windfall is worth about £8 billion to the Treasury. Fuel taxes must be cut immediately. That would have the added advantage of constraining the Government in their waste of millions of pounds on stupid projects, such as MrMandelson’s brainchild, the Millennium Dome. Secondly, the Government have been literally ripping off the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom for whom the purchase of fuel is an entirely unavoidable necessity. At least two thirds of the rise in the price of petrol since May 1997 has been due to higher tax.
The mechanism employed by the Chancellor has been a form of stealth taxation based on a fuel duty escalator introduced by Norman Lamont in March 1993. The ostensible reason for this tax was to contribute to the prevention of ozone depletion, but the real reason had nothing to do with the environment. The real reason for the introduction of the fuel duty escalator was to reduce a £46 billion budget deficit that had resulted from the boom-and-bust policies of Nigel Lawson in the late 1980s. Chancellor Brown has used this stealth tax to its very limit. The CBI calculates that only 15% of revenue raised through fuel taxes is reinvested in transport infrastructure and public transport.
The result of Labour policy is that while the United Kingdom is a net exporter of oil, it pays higher fuel prices than any other western European country. The result is a massive distortion of competitiveness affecting major sectors of United Kingdom industry. The situation is exacerbated in Northern Ireland due to the weakness of the euro against sterling. Fuel costs for farmers and fishermen in Northern Ireland have increased by 110% in the past 12 months. Derv prices are 83% higher in Northern Ireland than in the Republic.
The combined result of tax differentials and exchange rate movements has put severe pressure on local business and caused a massive growth in criminality on the part of terrorist organisations left intact by the Belfast Agreement. CBI Northern Ireland calculates that individual fuel smugglers can gross up to £35,000 per week, thus undermining honest business.
High underlying fuel prices will continue. The western economies are currently facing historic oil shortages. At the same time, many OPEC members have little scope to pump out extra oil as they are already operating close to capacity. The crisis of unacceptably high fuel prices will not be resolved in the long term by a short-term manipulation of tax rates. The crisis is due to something deeper than an entirely legitimate concern about oil prices.
The crisis reflects a United Kingdom economy — indeed, an EU economy — that has reached the limit of taxable capacity. This is shown by the fact that 78% of the UK electorate supports the protests and blockages and 85% demands a cut in fuel taxation. This is very relevant to the dominant tax-raising mentality — which we have just heard about — in the Assembly. This mentality is out of touch with the requirement of economic success in a capitalist, competitive global economy. The current fuel tax crisis is indicative of the imperative to move towards a low-tax economy in the United Kingdom by a radical rolling-back of the frontiers of the state in the areas of social welfare, education and health and to substitute for state provision the development of private market-orientated provision in these areas. State provision in these areas is marked by inefficiencies that squander literally uncountable billions of taxpayers’ money.
This political crisis provides politicians and business leaders in Northern Ireland with the opportunity to put themselves in the vanguard of a new progressive thinking aimed at the creation in the United Kingdom of a minimalist state which is required to lay the basis of a low tax economy. That is what is required for economic prosperity in the context of permanent global capitalism. The Government could then concentrate on its primary function of effectively protecting the lives and property of law-abiding citizens. The NIUP supports the motion and demands an immediate cut in fuel taxation before further irreparable damage is done to major sectors of business in Northern Ireland.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I support the motion. There are a number of issues in this debate. Foremost must be the rise in fuel costs attributable to the rise in the price of crude oil, and hence the rise imposed at the pumps by the oil companies. Second is the tax take of the Government through fuel duties and VAT. Thirdly, there is a disparity in fuel prices throughout Europe and the civilised world.
First, and most importantly, we must consider the impact of the exorbitant price of fuel on our economy and on the public, given the poor public transport links available in the Province. The oil companies are making disproportionate profits at the expense of the travelling public and British industry. Over the past week the oil companies have tried to raise prices by 2p per litre, only to back down due to public, and perhaps Government, pressure. Industry sources say that the rise was not wholly needed to cover crude oil prices but was an exercise in profiteering on the companies’ part. In fact, 1p would have covered the rise in the price of crude oil.
Secondly, we have the Government’s double whammy in taking both duty and VAT on the same product. It is well known that 75% of the price of a litre of fuel is made up of tax. That is totally unacceptable and must be addressed immediately. The Government is wrong to say that all this tax is needed for public services. It is a fact that for every $1 rise in oil prices, the Government gain £330million per year.
Recent rises since the Government’s comprehensive spending review in July totalled $11 a barrel, so the Chancellor would bring in an extra £3·7 billion in tax revenue. Translating this into petrol duty would cut 7·5p a litre off the cost of fuel. I call on Gordon Brown to make these legitimate cuts immediately to allow our hard-pressed industrial base and the motoring public some breathing space.
It has also been suggested that we should have a VAT-lowering mechanism to be triggered when world oil prices rise above a certain level. I would welcome such a measure, as would the public, but I believe it should be set up so that the red tape would not outweigh the benefits, and that the cost would not be passed on to the public.
We must consider the disparity in fuel prices between here and the rest of Europe, our main trading partners. These disparities are belittled by the Government, and the public is fed untruths to keep the blame away from the national Government’s door. I will list four lies that were highlighted in the press over the last week.
First, "Motorists are no worse off than their European counterparts as, in Europe, motorists must pay tolls, even though taxes are much less in Europe."
The fact is we pay higher fuel duties than anywhere in Europe. We pay more to buy our cars. Motor tax is greater here than almost anywhere in Europe and, although some Europeans have road tolls, the income from them is spent almost wholly on transport issues.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the Member aware that throughout France, which spends 80% of its tax revenue from motor fuel on roads, one can travel on the route nationale, which is better than most of our motorways, and whether one travels on a toll road is entirely optional?

Mr Boyd Douglas: I was not aware of that.
The second point I would like to highlight, which was a mistruth on the part of the Government, is "Cuts in fuel tax will hit spending on health and education."
Since spending plans were revised in July, increased Government income would allow cuts in fuel duty of 8p a litre, with no resultant cuts in public services.
A third misleading statement was "Tax cannot be changed except during the March Budget".
The fact is that under the 1979 Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) Act the Chancellor can raise and lower fuel duties by up to 10% at any time, without requiring legislation. This would allow petrol prices to be cut by 20p a gallon.
The fourth misleading point is "High fuel tax protects the environment by cutting pollution."
There is little evidence to support the assertion that raising fuel taxes cuts pollution. Even though the fuel tax has risen exorbitantly since 1993, the miles driven has also risen — by 12%. If the environment is so important to the Government, would it not make more sense for them to invest in clean technology and energy-efficient measures?
My final point, which is more important and nearer to home, is that more than any other part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland depends on oil for its energy. We have an agriculture industry, already crippled by bad prices, finding its fuel costs increased drastically throughout the last year. This adds to the costs of both farmers and agriculture contractors and, indirectly, as hauliers are affected, we find that input costs also rise. Our haulage businesses suffer, as they cannot pass on price rises to their customers and risk being replaced by hauliers from the South. Our rural areas depend on oil to carry out almost any function throughout the day, especially in the farming community. We are on the periphery of Europe, and, apart from oil, there is no type of fuel we can use.
Much of the Province also depends on oil for home heating. Therefore any price rise impacts on the most needy in society — namely, the young, the unemployed and the elderly. We also have a land border with another EU state. That gives rise to smuggling on a grand scale, creating great losses to our public funds.
In supporting this motion, I call on the Chancellor to cut fuel duties immediately and to cut or abolish VAT above a specified world oil price threshold. I also call on the Chancellor to cut the remaining VAT on home heating oil as this is not a luxury but a necessity. I support the motion.

Mr Robert McCartney: At this stage of the debate it might be said that the field has not just been played upon but has been ploughed. Therefore I will endeavour to confine my remarks to some salient, and perhaps greener, parts of the pitch. There is no doubt that the situation threatening our agricultural and haulage base with extinction is caused by two main considerations: first, the absolutely punitive rates of excise duty and VAT on motor fuel; and secondly, but directly related to the first consideration, the softly, softly policy of the Government in relation to the commercial activities of paramilitaries.
Some of these figures lead to interesting conclusions. The number of vehicles in Northern Ireland has risen by 21% since 1995. There have been 125,000 additional vehicles registered in Northern Ireland in that period. The amount of legally imported fuel has dropped by over 50%, according to the figures of the Petrol Retailers Association. Even the Government say that it has dropped by 41%. If you have an increase in the number of users of motor fuel, and you have a fantastic reduction in the amount of fuel that is legally imported, then the only conclusion must be that a vast quantity of fuel is being illegally imported into Northern Ireland.
Of course, that is not the only reason. An increasing and significant number of owners of vehicles registered in Northern Ireland are going into the Republic to top up their tanks.

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robert McCartney: Not just at the moment.
For some hauliers, proximity to the border makes it viable for them to go into the Republic. They are filling up their vehicles in the Republic as much as they can. Many major haulage contractors have also registered their vehicles in the Republic because the vehicle licensing excise duty fee there is about a third of what they pay in Northern Ireland. The effect of Northern Ireland-registered vehicles filling up in the Republic is to pour millions into the coffers of its Treasury.
Many informed sources believe that up to 30% of all motor fuel used in Northern Ireland is unlawfully imported from the Republic. It is imported through the border areas of southArmagh and, to a degree, Fermanagh. It is imported through areas controlled by paramilitary groups which, if not actually running these unlawful operations, are undoubtedly extracting licensing fees. Huge amounts of money are providing a financial base for terrorism that will threaten our entire society, North and South. The political representatives of some of those people are in this Assembly. They have the approach of whited sepulchres, and they make speeches in the Chamber attacking the British Treasury.
There is no doubt that the Chancellor is good measure for a significant degree of criticism, as many Members have already indicated. However, Mr McGrady, for the SDLP, was strangely silent on his partners in the pan-Nationalist front, who are undoubtedly delighted that the British Treasury is rightly getting stick. They, and the groups that they represent, are contributing in no small part to the difficulties experienced by honest and decent lawful traders in Northern Ireland.
It was mentioned that some 60 petrol retailers have gone out of business in the last year. I have information about a petrol retailer who puts up a notice on his station stating "The only fuel here is legally obtained". He does this in a psychological endeavour to compete with a petrol station some one hundred yards away that is grossly undercutting him by selling fuel at a price at which the lawful trader cannot even purchase it, let alone sell it.
In my constituency I have had other people with small businesses — running newspaper and tobacconist shops — who buy their cigarette and tobacco stock from a lawful source and who cannot compete with those around them who are flogging contraband goods brought in by paramilitaries. I have to say that the paramilitaries concerned are not of the green variety, though my oft-stated view in this Assembly is that I have absolutely nothing but loathing for paramilitaries, whether they be orange, green or polka-dotted. However, I loathe the hypocrisy of those, such as the representatives of Sinn Fein and, to a lesser degree, Mr McGrady, who have attempted to soft-pedal the fact that the corruption that is spreading from paramilitary activity is beginning to invade every stratum of society.
Many of those who can afford to drive expensive, powerful cars and provide a four-wheel-drive vehicle for the missis to pick up the kiddies, and even those who are driving a business car or a company vehicle where they can write-off the increased duties to their tax and reclaim the VAT, are prepared to admit that for them the increases in petrol fuel are relatively unimportant. However, for the haulier, the farmer, the fisherman, the small businessman, the manual worker who needs his vehicle to get to work, the retired resident in a rural area on a fixed income, a car and such transport is not a luxury. It is a fundamental and basic necessity.
Society is being corrupted because, for the sake of maintaining what passes for peace in the form of a terrorist-controlled ceasefire, there has been a marked reluctance by this Government to provide a strategy for the Customs and Excise to deal with a problem that will lead to grave difficulties, not just for those on the margin, but, ultimately, for some of the larger players.
A major company operating in the fuel business — a major employer with assets of over £100 million — has already indicated that such have been the cuts in its profit margins due to smuggling that withdrawal from the Province is increasingly becoming a viable consideration.
The Chancellor must act, and he must act soon. With everyone in the Assembly, and most law-abiding citizens, I endorse the view that at present we should be attempting to avoid blockades that would damage the foundations and base of our commercial and other businesses.
I sympathise with those industrialists and bigger players who feel that the blockade might do irreparable damage, but I issue this warning. A point will come when those who are against the wall will look after their interests and those of their families. It will be all very well for those at a higher level to say there must be no blockade. Some people will have no alternative. They are the small petrol retailers, who are going out of business, and the farmers.
Farmers have to pay for fertiliser, feed and stock to be hauled onto the farm and produce to be hauled out. They are faced with escalating transport charges and see profits from pork, beef or lamb production going down the Swanee.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
It is vitally important that we persuade the Chancellor to listen, for he has not listened. He has told us lies and he has fabricated untruths. He has designated what were largely peaceful blockades as peaceful — so peaceful that many Chief Constables could not arrest people because they were not committing any offence.
We saw macho-man Blair come on and say he was going to do X, Y and Z, and that everything would be rolling in 24hours. In today’s ‘Daily Telegraph’, Siôn Simon — a Labour apologist — described these people as terrorists. Mr Blair was going to do the most dreadful things to them. Yet we are faced with his sickening, absurd surrender to paramilitarism and terrorism that is destroying the whole base of society, not just on the Shankill but now in North Down. All strata of society must get together. If we do not look after the small petrol retailer, and the farmers who are mortgaged up to the hilt and who have never drawn a penny of public welfare in generations, it will only be a matter of time before this poison spreads to higher levels in society.
We should remember these words of John Donne:
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls".
No man is an island. No stratum of this society is an island, because if something is not done to help those most grievously at risk at the present time, then for sure the bell will toll for all of us.

Mr Speaker: A substantial number of Members wish to speak, reflecting the level of concern about this issue. I propose to continue through the lunch period. We must break at 2.30 pm through to 4.00 pm for Ministerial questions, but we will then resume the debate and take it through to 6.00 pm. Even with that substantial period, I have to ask that Members do not go beyond their 10 minutes. If the Members listed take 10 minutes each I will have to bring speeches to a close. This is an attempt to make sure that all Members get a chance to express themselves.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I will restrict myself to the time you have mentioned, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my Colleagues Mr Beggs and MrDodds. This is an extremely timely and important debate in the context of events outside this House, in other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic.
I am also conscious that this is not a new crisis emerging only over recent days. It has existed for many months — since 1997 at least. It has already caused job losses and the closure of many small businesses, road haulage firms and petrol retailers and, in my constituency of Newry and Armagh all those businesses have been affected by the crisis.
I am also aware that the Assembly has no responsibility in this matter. It is a reserved matter. Nevertheless, I hope the Secretary of State will take the opportunity to listen to the views of this Assembly albeit via Hansard. It is crucial that the views of this House are reflected in the strongest possible terms to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Cabinet.
I wish to concentrate on the plight of the petrol retailers, many of whom have made representations to me. It is very clear that successive Chancellors, irrespective of party, have used fuel excise duty as a way of generating Government money to put various schemes and policies in place.
The creation of the fuel escalator combined with the exchange rate difference, especially in relation to the Irish Republic, has created a lethal cocktail which many local operators have been unable to withstand. Approximately 90 legitimate retailers have gone out of business over recent months. Government statistics confirm that sales of legitimate fuel have effectively been halved since 1994. However, there has been a 20% increase in the number of vehicles on the roads in Northern Ireland.
It remains inexplicable how any Chancellor representing any Government can afford to lose in excess of £300 million in revenue. That is the conservative estimate available at this time. One wonders what this Assembly could achieve with that amount of money in spending priorities. Consequently, many long-standing legitimate petrol retailers have gone out of business. They have gone out of business only to be replaced by spivs and highly questionable opportunists, many of whom have links to the paramilitaries.
I take this opportunity to register my concerns, and those of many in the fuel industry, about the flagrant and open abuse of the sale and illegal transportation of fuel in border areas, organised and controlled by paramilitaries that are mostly, but not exclusively, Republican. Government failure to adequately resource a proper Customs and Excise response to this problem makes me extremely suspicious that there may be political reasons for not dealing with this issue properly. I sincerely hope that is not the case. As I travel the roads of south Armagh I see tankers and lorries travelling on minor roads, some of them on approved roads, bringing their cargo. The illegal operation is quite alarming and must be addressed urgently.
Urgent action is required if this important sector of our economy is to be rescued. The cost to the local economy and the environment has already been too high. At last, public opinion on this matter has been mobilised by the clever tactics of the various sectors to highlight and expose the greedy Treasury.
I pay tribute to those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in Northern Ireland, who have organised and mobilised people on this issue. They have caught the spin doctors on the hop and the Government have been shaken to their very foundations. The Prime Minister has now been given an opportunity to address the situation. The petrol retailers and the people of Northern Ireland demand that he and his Government take urgent steps to reduce excise duties and deal with the widespread problem of fuel smuggling in Northern Ireland.

Mr John Dallat: It is essential that the Assembly present a united front on this very important issue.
It is with regret that I detect a further split in the United Kingdom Unionist Party, with BobMcCartney, the intellectual, now being voted out of the House.
We do not want to add to the hothouse gases; we want to present concrete proposals that will assist the haulage and farming industries and other elements of society that are suffering because of the high cost of fuel.
Mr McCartney’s attack on my Colleague Eddie McGrady was disgraceful. For many years he has stood up and spoken out against all forms of violence. He would in no way condone the continuing activities of any paramilitary group. I am sorry that Mr McCartney has not remained to hear my response.
I reiterate Mr McGrady’s very sensible suggestion that at least part of the answer to this problem can be found in the European Union. Through our involvement in the Assembly, we are constantly reminded that we cannot infringe European laws. This problem has a European dimension. As Mr McGrady has already pointed out, there are special arrangements in other parts of the European Union to take account of tax differentials which cause trading problems. I suggest that we take our case to Europe. Let us assume that our British friends will not stand in our way by saying that this is an internal, domestic problem. This is a serious crisis that is impacting on the lives of thousands of European citizens. The European Union has not only a right but a responsibility to be part of the solution to a problem that is caused directly by political land boundaries between member states.
The oil crisis did not start last week or last month. It has been developing since the 1970s because successive British Governments found it too easy to put tax on fuel as a convenient means of raising revenue. The difficulty with this particular fiscal policy is that it results in the highest rate of taxation on fuel in the developed world. This policy has already been described as a rip-off, and I agree with that. The term "Rip-off Britain" is commonly being applied to an economy where it is not just the cost of fuel that is crippling the lives of ordinary, decent people. There is a rip-off on many consumer goods as a direct result of unfair taxes. An internal report prepared for the Treasury shows that furniture and carpets are, on average, 56% more expensive than in other European countries. Sporting goods cost 31% more, while cars and motorbikes set the consumer back an extra 29%. Electrical goods are, on average, 22% more expensive.
Today’s debate is focused on fuel and tax and, therefore, on road hauliers in particular. That other industries are also facing serious problems because of the differential between the cost of goods here and in other European countries cannot be ignored.
I am pleased that some Members made reference to the farming industry. We all know that that economy has been decimated by a number of factors including a poor market, but now it is being crucified by the escalating price of oil. Farmers are a critical part of the rural community, and Ministers in the Assembly have an important role to play in highlighting the impossible position that they find themselves in.
The car industry is facing serious difficulties due to the price differential with imports not only from the Republic but also from mainland Europe. Tax is part of the problem, but there are other issues which the Government have failed to act upon. We are a part of a rip-off economy which needs to be resolved, but the Government are doing nothing about it. Fuel, as we have been told, is now twice as expensive as in the Republic and four times more expensive than in the United States of America. The high cost of fuel adds to the cost of all goods and services, and the people who suffer most are those on low incomes. While the Government might claim that taxation is needed to fund Government services, the people who are penalised most are those whom the Government would claim they are supporting, namely those in greatest need — and, again, I emphasise the farming and rural industries.
The question remains unanswered as to where taxation will come from to fund the Health Service and so on when oil runs out in 2030, or at best in 40 years’ time. How much of the present tax is spent on developing alternative forms of energy? I suspect very little. The environmental issue is often used to justify the high cost of fuel but this policy, as we have been told many times today, has failed miserably. Those who can afford it will go on paying higher prices for fuel, and the people who are again penalised are those at the margins of society who either cannot afford private transport or have to pay high costs for public transport.
Our public transport has suffered from underinvestment and does not meet the needs of the travelling public. In the North the problems are compounded because of the land border, and there is no easy solution other than to pay an oil rebate, as has already been mentioned. That, however, will not stop the huge number of private cars that fill up on the other side of the border on a daily basis, and it most certainly will offer no comfort to the filling stations in the North which are still open and struggling to survive.
There has to be an end to the see-saw of differentials in duty that has occurred over the years, sometimes in favour of the North and sometimes in favour of the South. The only way to do that is to harmonise taxes on both sides of the border. To do otherwise is to create a paradise for smugglers who, by the way, do not have to be terrorists plotting to overthrow the Government.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Member accept that it is not harmonisation on this island that is required but, as he outlined in his earlier remarks, harmonisation of fuel prices throughout Europe?

Mr John Dallat: Absolutely. Indeed, MrKennedy has pre-empted something I will say later.
Much of the diesel on offer is not smuggled but is "manufactured" in the North using mixtures which I should perhaps not advertise. In other cases it is laundered with the aid of chemicals. Either way it eventually leads to expensive repairs for the unsuspecting motorists who buy it.
Now I come to Mr Kennedy’s well-made point. The only long-term solution is for taxes to be harmonised throughout Europe, but, in the short term, if Britain has any interest in aiding the economic recovery of the North, then its Government should act as a Government should and address the issues while we still have an economic infrastructure. This Assembly in its fledgling days deserves the full support of the British Government to deliver, and, at present, they are not giving that support. Tax on oil is one issue, but we must remember that it is only part of the solution. The cost of road tax is also a serious issue. It is often the difference between viability and bankruptcy.
As Eddie McGrady suggested at the beginning, this case must go to Europe. The Assembly must act — not next week or next month but today — to demonstrate that it has a useful function and is not simply a rubber stamp for implementing British policy, irrespective of the consequences. A series of suggestions has been made before the House. Let us include the European dimension, for it is here, I believe, that we will find not only a sympathetic ear, but a possible complete, or at least, partial solution to a very serious problem.

Mr Paul Berry: The motion draws attention to three issues — taxation, competition, and smuggling. They have all been well covered already.
I shall deal first with taxation. We are not discussing a fuel crisis today, but a tax crisis. It was the extravagant vehicle excise duty which drove hauliers to re-register more than 3,500 lorries in the Irish Republic. It is the excessive taxation on fuel which encourages thousands of motorists to buy it across the border. Its impact is seen right across my constituency where, as has been pointed out already, scores of filling stations have closed because taxation has made it uneconomic to sell their fuel legally.

Mr Derek Hussey: The point has already been made about the closure of filling stations, but it is exacerbated by the fact that for many of my constituents and, I am sure, for the Member’s, their nearest petrol station is now across the border since so many have closed along it.

Mr Paul Berry: I entirely agree with the Member. Indeed, motorists from my own town of Tandragee, which is 20 miles from the border, cross it to buy their fuel.
The cost of fuel is well known, and the question has been covered very well today. When petrol arrives at the filling station, it costs a mere 16p a litre. When the customer buys that petrol, the cost has risen dramatically to 80p or more a litre. The 60p increase goes directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some 72% of the cost of fuel is accounted for by pure taxation. In other words, even if the petrol companies gave petrol away for free, it would still cost us at least 60p a litre, a situation which is neither just nor fair. The basic cost of fuel is the same in the United Kingdom as anywhere else. Excessive taxation makes the difference. The United Kingdom has the highest tax rate in the whole of Europe. The Republic of Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, Greece and Portugal all charge a mere 55p at the pump. The price doubles because of tax. In France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, the price trebles after tax. Out on its own is the United Kingdom, where the price quadruples after tax. While the rest of Europe can buy fuel from 55p to 70p a litre, we must pay at least 80p to 85p a litre at the pump.
My second point concerns competition. Excessive taxation has had a negative impact on competition. It has allowed our competitors to begin with every advantage. The French haulier, for example, begins with a 17% advantage. When the Labour Government came to power in May 1997, the difference in fuel costs was 4p a litre. Today, that figure has soared to well over 20p. This hinders fair competition, and a civil Government is to blame. Instead of helping firms, it is driving them out of business in Northern Ireland. The excise rate in the Republic is about £1,200, while we in Northern Ireland pay about three times that figure — hardly a vote of encouragement for our hauliers or farmers. We must look at the tax on heavy goods vehicles. In the United Kingdom, it is £3,800, in the Irish Republic £1,200 and in Holland £750.
The last issue I wish to raise, which has been covered very well today, is that of smuggling. Recently four laundering plants have been closed down, but when one considers that each of those was capable of laundering 750,000 litres a year, one realises that the sums involved are vast. Who is losing out? Legal petrol stations are — and to such an extent that many are closing. The Exchequer is losing at least £40,000 per week. One customs officer recently stated that this has become a large-scale business. Reference was also made to organised criminal gangs which are exploiting the current situation. Smuggling has penalised law-abiding people and rewarded the racketeers. We are dealing with a problem that has reached epidemic proportions. The Northern Ireland Select Committee’s report claimed that the Exchequer is losing out on at least £100 million per year.
In my constituency, and Mr Kennedy has already covered this, you can drive around the roads in south Armagh and see these lorries coming across the border. The police, the security forces and Customs and Excise have been working rigorously to track down these racketeers. It is difficult, but we do need more effort to try to track down these racketeers. They are mainly Republicans, especially in the area of south Armagh.
There is a clear focus to secure a reduction in fuel prices. If that is not done in Northern Ireland high fuel costs will equate to high haulage costs, resulting in high prices for consumer goods.
I support this motion and trust that action will be taken.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle, I also support the motion and agree with most of what has been said today.
I would like to welcome the farmers and hauliers who have come to the Assembly to highlight their situation. They are at the coalface, and they incur the costs directly on their income every day in a big way. I welcome their having this opportunity to make their protest heard.
This is about taxation more so than fuel. I speak mostly about rural areas. Rural dwellers do not have a choice in getting from one place to another, unlike city dwellers. They have some form of public transport — we have no public transport west of the Bann. Therefore people do not have a choice — they have to have their own transport. This affects the local economy with regard to inward investment. Investors look at those areas as being on the periphery and far away from ports. They consider that a detriment and decide that they are better off basing their industries elsewhere, disadvantaging people who live in the west in the matter of equality of job opportunities.
The agriculture industry, which has had massive hikes in its fuel prices — they have more than doubled in the last year — is feeling the pinch very severely. It is quite noticeable at farm level. People are trying to pay bills from hire companies and contractors. These have to be dealt with every year, whether they can afford it or not. There is great anger in the rural communities. The elderly are facing heating-fuel bills of double the price this winter but have been given a measly 75p increase on their pensions by Tony Blair, payable next April. This shows a lack of commitment to all rural areas by the British Government in terms of their wish to see those areas survive economically.
How much of the road tax that the hauliers pay goes back into roads? The Department of the Environment has a budget of £150,000 per year to repair the roads in Fermanagh. A company such as the SeanQuinn Group probably pays several times that amount in tax on its lorries. Of course, that is questionable now that so many have registered their lorries in the South, but the money is being paid and has been paid. They are not getting equal road quality for their vehicles and the amount of money that they are paying. That goes for motor car owners as well. There is a massive inequality. People have paid vast sums of money over the years and had nothing in return.
I agree with some of the environmental reasons for spending money on the environment and reducing emissions. However, speeding vehicles use a lot more fuel. Vehicles use one third more fuel above 60 mph. Most of the heavy vehicles these days are doing 70 mph-plus. There is something that people could do themselves to help, without incurring a cost.
Waste management is another problem which councils have to face in a bigger way than they have done so far. They are only touching the tip of the iceberg in their commitment to proper waste management that would make major savings in fuel. The free market is another thing that is lauded around the world, but it has a great cost in terms of waste and wasteful use of fuel. We are allowed to trade our goods from Brazil to Fermanagh. Beef is produced in Brazil and carted at great cost across the seas and across the roads to our shop shelves. The amount of fuel that is used to bring it here is a great cost. Is it really cheaper? Add up all the costs that are never counted when one compares the price here to the price somewhere else.
For every vehicle that goes down the road with goods in it, there is another one full of packaging and nothing else. That is another cost of the free market. I do not know what to do about it. Running two vehicles to deliver the same goods and bring them back again so that people can have massive choice is very costly in terms of global fuel costs. That is something people will have to look at in years to come.
I support the motion. There is to ing and fro ing about whether we should be speaking on an all-Ireland basis, or aiming our protests at the British Government. We in Ireland can enact a lot as a unified country, and make great savings in many ways at local and national level, no matter what the British Government do. The British Government have no particular interest in us in any part of Ireland. They work to their own agenda — "at home", as they call it — and they will never do anything to make life more sustainable for us here.

Mrs Joan Carson: Mr McCartney said that the field had been well and truly ploughed. I would like to harrow the field a little longer. I am concerned that the Labour Government’s policy of indirect, or stealth, taxation is contributing to a ridiculous situation where we pay 48·8p duty on a litre of petrol. It seems a lot. A litre is the size of a carton of fruit juice.
That is bad enough, but the Government then proceed to charge VAT on this part of the fuel costs. The taxation system is biased against motorists in many ways, but this double taxation is iniquitous.
The Conservative Government were originally to blame for introducing tax on fuel at 5% above the inflation rate. They thought that this would be played out after a number of years. Then the Labour Government discovered that this was an easy way of lining their coffers. They went one better and added 6% above inflation. These increases have been subject to double taxation by applying VAT in addition. If this double taxation were stopped, 8p per litre could be knocked off the price of fuel immediately.
I ask the Assembly to speak up for fuel consumers in farming, haulage and business, and I press the Westminster Government to address this issue in their November Budget review. I am deeply concerned about the plight of owners of filling stations. This has been mentioned in regard to border areas, but the problem has spread out from these areas as people increasingly realise that they can go across the border to fill up. The owners have seen their fuel sales drop because they have got dubious cheap fuels, and across the border fuel is cheaper again.
Our rural community comprises many facets, and the loss of locally based haulage to the Republic of Ireland is weakening our already precarious economy. I ask the Assembly to consider these issues in the wider context of maintaining our rural economy.
I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

Mr Joe Byrne: I support the general sentiments expressed by all Members who have spoken in the debate and congratulate MrBeggs and MrDodds on bringing forward this motion. Several people, including myself, have been lobbying on this issue for two years. We have focused in particular on the damage that the disparity in excise duty is causing to petrol retailers in the border area.
In my constituency of West Tyrone a number of filling stations have closed over the last two years, including five in Omagh, four in Strabane and at least 10 others throughout the rural area. Petrol retailers feel totally exasperated. They feel that they have been acting as tax collectors on the cheap. Currently a petrol retailer receives a margin of 2p per litre. The oil company gets 16p per litre and the Government gets 60pto65p per litre. Therefore the petrol retailer has a legitimate case when he feels that he is only a tax collector.
The sad reality is that, in the border zone from Derry to Newry and 25miles inside the Northern side, people are exercising their choice. They travel to the South in private motor cars to fill up. Many haulage companies also do this. I know one company with a fleet of lorries which saves £2,000 per week in fuel bills by purchasing its diesel south of the border. People are making an economic choice and, legitimately, they are purchasing much cheaper fuel.
The issue of smuggling has been emphasised. This is a problem, and no doubt there is a smugglers’ paradise for those who transport fuel deeper into Northern Ireland. This emphasises the gross disparity and the gross distortion to normal trade patterns which has greatly affected jobs in Northern Ireland. I cannot comprehend why the Treasury feels that it is marginal to sacrifice £200million per year in loss of excise duty and VAT on fuel. MrMcGrady, MrGallagher and myself went over to meet a junior Treasury Minister last year. The Treasury officials seemed nonplussed that about £200million on average was being lost. The reality is that in Northern Ireland this is not a marginal issue. It is a major issue which affects many filling stations and road haulage companies, as well as small manufacturing and distribution businesses that use their own vehicles for delivery.
Reference has been made to getting our neighbours in the Republic to increase their excise duties to make them in line with ours. I do not understand the economic logic of that, although there may be a political one. I have no doubt that now there is such a lobby in the Republic, there will be a further reduction in excise duties there over the next year. I think that the political pressure is such that the Government will reduce it. Consumers in Northern Ireland should not be the only ones to bear the burden and pain of high excise duties; our neighbours in the Republic should be asked to do likewise. The real issue here is that we need to get the Chancellor and the Treasury to recognise that the inelastic demand response to high excise duties for the last 26 years can no longer be tolerated.
In 1974, OPEC target oil prices quadrupled from $4 to $16 a barrel. In 1978, the target price increased to $28, and within the last 10 years the target price increased to $32. However, for the last 20 years the spot price of crude oil has averaged somewhere between $10 and $15 a barrel, which is not an exorbitant increase from the $4 a barrel in 1974.
In 1974 the average retail price of petrol and diesel was under 50p a gallon; it is currently almost £4 a gallon. It is not difficult to realise that it is not the oil companies that are ripping us off — unfortunately it is the Government.
I can understand the logic, in environmental terms, of having high excise duties and VAT on fuel if the revenue were being directed into public transport in order to provide an alternative mode of transport, but only 15 % of the total fuel tax revenue goes towards public transport. We have been fed an illusory argument for a long time.
In the meantime industry in Northern Ireland has suffered a major economic handicap. Because of our peripheral location it is virtually impossible for it to compete today while the high excise duties continue. I feel very sympathetic towards the road haulage companies. For many years Northern Ireland had a large road haulage industry, but it is shrinking, almost weekly, at the moment. We cannot compete.
I remember the time when Montgomery Transport Ltd, Woodside Haulage Ltd, Dukes Transport Ltd, Omagh Freight, Kelly Freight, Carna Transport Ltd and others had large fleets of lorries on the roads, but those fleets are getting smaller, because they cannot compete. As several Members said, many lorries are now being registered in the Republic, and that is disadvantaging our local regional economy.
I am extremely sorry for the legitimate road haulier or petrol retailer who feels unfairly treated as a result of Government policy. This Assembly does not have control over this issue; it is a reserved matter for Westminster.
I would like the Northern Ireland MPs to get together and make known the adverse impact high excise fuel duties are having on our industries.
Many parts of Northern Ireland are almost becoming an economic wasteland owing to this issue. The punt/pound differential is adding another 20% to 25% to our local industry costs. It is virtually impossible to compete when there is such a disparity in the exchange rate along the border zone. That begs the question of how long the situation can continue? Many in the manufacturing and retail sectors say it is impossible to see beyond the next six months. Action is needed urgently.
Earlier I referred to the five filling stations in Omagh and four in Strabane. They not only sold petrol and diesel, but they also had shops, and some of them sold tyres. That has all gone. I know family-owned businesses that want to remain in business, but which are being put in a terrible dilemma because of the product they are being offered for sale. The Assembly should not expect legitimate businesses such as these to suffer that dilemma any longer.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the debate, and I support the motion. Indeed, the motion deserves the support of us all. The debate has been interesting. I listened with incredulity, along with every other Member, to MrBirnie’s gambit for Irish unity by suggesting that petrol prices should be inflated across the island. However, I do not know how that would be received in other parts of this island.
On the serious aspect of this debate, much energy and anger has been directed, rightly, at the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. They claimed that the protests will not make them change the level of fuel tax. They have treated those people who tried to indicate the level of public outrage and concern felt at the unjustifiably high level of duty on fuel with contempt. The Prime Minister said that it would be harmful to democracy and that he would not be bullied by the protestors.
Most people here believe that the Prime Minister has not been consistent on this issue of bullying. We have heard across this House that the Prime Minister is prepared to be bullied by other people in this Province — by the very people whose organisations are engaged in the illegal smuggling and trading of fuel. Yet he claims that he will not be bullied by the protestors.
The Prime Minister has called for proper and sensible debate. He says that there is a proper way to do things in the United Kingdom. Today, we are having a proper debate. We are telling the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that the rate of duty on fuel is excessive and it must come down. The reasons have been enunciated across the Floor — it is having a harmful impact on many industries, farmers, and ordinary householders who use fuel and who use petrol in their cars.
The Prime Minister asked for a proper debate, but is he listening? He asked for a debate on the issue and now one devolved region of the United Kingdom is having one. The Prime Minister should now respond positively to this debate. His failure to do so will only indicate that he is storing up more trouble ahead. I believe that a failure to respond will only force protestors back onto the streets in order to squeeze a response from him over the winter months.
The inconvenience that we witnessed across the United Kingdom last week was minor compared to what it could have been if this protest had taken place in the heart of winter and in the very cold of the Outer Hebrides or parts of Northern Ireland. People would then have realised that Mr Tony Blair could be building up his very own winter of discontent. If he is not prepared to listen or to respond positively at this time, he is making further protests inevitable.
Members have rightly said that Northern Ireland is doubly disadvantaged because of the land border with the Republic of Ireland and the difference in duty there. Across the entire European Union, even where prices are more than 30% lower than in the United Kingdom, people are outraged that the price paid to Government for this vital fuel and resource is so high. Government policy on fuel tax is daylight robbery.
Look at some of the facts produced by the cross-party group that met in Northern Ireland last week. Fuel accounts for 35% of hauliers’ operating costs. Fuel costs for farmers and fishermen have increased by 110% in the past 12 months. Derv prices are 83% higher in Northern Ireland than in the Republic of Ireland. That difference does not appear to be affected by the fact that the price of crude oil is the same in both countries. Official sales of fuel in Northern Ireland are down 42% in the last year.
It is not too strong to say that Government policy on this issue is daylight robbery. It is robbery that works against the robber. Across Northern Ireland, retailers tell me that there is a massive incentive to smuggle fuel because the price differential is so big. If the Government set a more modest level of duty, we would find that the risks and penalties associated with smuggling were not worth the while of the smuggler.
It is because of the price differential and the massive profits associated with this illegal trade that smuggling of petrol and, for that matter, cigarettes and tobacco is so common in Northern Ireland. The onus is on the Government to reduce excise duties so that it is not worthwhile for the smuggler to face those penalties because he cannot make the same profit and the same rich pickings that he is making now.
Across the United Kingdom the public do not feel guilty about purchasing smuggled fuel. We should face up to that. Most retailers will tell you that 73% of what is going into the car goes to the Government. Many people are of the view that the only person benefiting is a fat- cat Chancellor. It is not the ordinary retailer who is trying to make a living for himself and his family. There appears to be no tangible benefit to our roads from fuel tax.
There are those who argue that we will eventually see environmental improvements. The Road Haulage Association has produced statistics claiming that when a 40-tonne lorry delivers goods to a supermarket, it requires 500 cars to take that same amount of goods away. It goes on to say that whether we like it or not, even if rail freight grew by 300% over the next 10 years, more than 85% of goods would still have to be moved by road. Therefore, the environmental argument that this money will eventually see its way into better means of transport is complete and total nonsense.
The Government have a fundamental issue to deal with. Do they want to raise tax for its own sake or do these inflated tax demands have a purpose? Are the Government going to continue to insist on this high tax despite the fact that across the United Kingdom people are crying out against it? The European Union is mentioned in this motion. If the European Union means anything, then it could have bargained a deal with the oil-producing nations that would have resulted in lower fuel prices for all European citizens.
The failure of the Governments in the so-called partnership of Europe to bring about such a harmonised policy on fuel tax highlights the giant failure of the entire European experiment. It has failed its citizens on one of the most practical social and economic issues.
The United Kingdom Government must come up with a policy and a level of duty that ensures a vital resource is not priced at a luxury price but at a price that equates with its necessity.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member says that the European Union has failed the citizens of Europe. Does he agree that there is not the same sort of problem in continental Europe as in the United Kingdom?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am amazed by that statement, considering the violent protests in France over the last few weeks and the outbreak in Belgium, where fuel duty is low at 19.2%. The whole of the European Parliament has been brought to a halt this very week.
The fuel duty which the United Kingdom Government and Governments across Europe impose on their citizens is unjustifiably high. It is unreasonable to ask people to pay that amount of duty. Wages do not inflate at the same rate. If the Government do not respond positively to the minimal protest that we have witnessed in the last few days, there will be a maximal protest that could cause widespread concern across the whole of Europe.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion although, having listened to some UUP and DUP Members from across the Floor, I began to wonder if we were not rerunning the decommissioning argument because there was so much talk about paramilitarism and republicanism. It is worth remembering that to address the effect of the present crisis and not the cause is to devalue the crisis and to devalue the debate. We are talking about the iniquitous inequalities in fuel prices. So far as this part of the island is concerned, the only long-term way to address this problem, as with other problems, is to harmonise taxes across the island.
There is nothing new about smuggling, a Cheann Comhairle, and there is nothing new about poor men becoming rich through smuggling. Many of the poor men who became rich were not Republicans and did not belong to the Republican community. Since partition the border has generated an economy of its own, depending on whatever commodity was scarce. I remember when it was butter, then it was tea, then it was cattle and then it was pigs; other times it was alcohol. You cannot blame the effect without looking at the cause. It has been disappointing to listen to those who proposed the motion engaging in opportunistic party politics.
A Cheann Comhairle, we must address the fundamental issue that has bedevilled this island since partition. That is the lack of harmonisation of taxes and other tax-raising devices. Germany, France and Italy were able to harmonise and lessen the impact of the hardships caused by different prices, especially of fuel and related commodies.
It is also worth remembering, a Cheann Comhairle, that there is a global aspect to this. The British Government have, in their way, contributed to this crisis by acceding to OPEC demands to control the supply of crude oil. There is a global dimension as well as a local dimension.
To reiterate — and I am not just making a political point — it makes economic sense, if we co-exist on this island, to harmonise taxes if for whatever reasons we need that harmonisation.
DrBirnie’s suggestion that one solution might be for the Southern Government to raise their taxes to harmonise with ours is almost too ludicrous for words. I would have thought that the all-Ireland Ministerial Council would be looking at, as we have said, the harmonising of the tax regime in the two parts of the island.
It is a problem that causes anomalies in the Province. In Donegal there were protests when retailers there increased the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps — prices were higher than in the rest of the island. People in Donegal, within the Province, had to protest against that iniquitous rise in their fuel prices — so it causes problems right across the board.
We have talked about the agriculture and road haulage sectors, but another sector which is seriously disadvantaged by this crisis comprises those who use home heating oil — particularly the elderly and the unemployed. On 27September1999, 900litres of home heating oil cost £127; on 18September2000, 900litres of oil cost £230 — a price rise of £103. That is an increase of more than 100%.
In our attempts to alleviate the problems of the haulage industry and the agriculture sector, we should also look seriously and urgently at the way in which ordinary domestic consumers using home heating oil are possibly trebly disadvantaged. They may have a car, or the husband might have a van that he uses for his business on which he is paying extra fuel tax. Then, just to keep themselves warm, they are paying over 100% more than they did last year. This is particularly relevant for the older members of our community. A Cheann Comhairle, I want to conclude by saying that I am not just making a political point, but the only solution, not only to the fuel crisis but to other crises that will arise in the future, is to have a harmonisation of tax and duty taxes throughout the island of Ireland.

Ms Jane Morrice: I also support the motion. I intend to be brief, and I do not think I need dwell on the well- rehearsed issues that have been raised, both in the Chamber and outside, by the hauliers and farmers who have come here today. Their plight has been documented on our television screens over the last few days, and everyone is aware of the issues. We are well aware of the precarious position of our farmers, our fishermen, our road hauliers, our petrol retailers in the border areas, and of those mentioned by MrJohnKelly a moment ago, domestic consumers, particularly the elderly, who have to depend on this source of fuel.
We support the call on the Chancellor to
"lessen the impact of high fuel costs on the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and its people".
We want to look at what the last few weeks have shown us about our complete and utter dependence on this type of fuel. The fact that a well-known high street shop in Belfast ran out of sandwiches because of the fuel crisis on the mainland is shocking when sandwiches could be made just round the corner. What sort of society is this that we depend so much on fuel in this way?
Those taxes that are raised should be used for investment in alternative clean energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass et cetera to reduce our over- dependence on fossil fuels. Secondly, they should also be used to support strategies, initiatives and incentives to reduce CO2 emissions and encourage imaginative ideas such as car sharing and other ways of reducing the traffic on our roads. Finally, we desperately need investment in our public transport system, and particularly in the railways. Those are issues that the Government should look at.

Mr Speaker: We will now interrupt the debate on fuel costs and return to it at 4.00 pm.
The debate stood suspended.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members have been informed, via the annunciator, that a statement expected from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on their visit to Washington has been cancelled. When are we likely to get this statement, and what reason has been given for the cancellation? Can you confirm that one of the reasons was that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could not heal their rift on policing?

Mr Speaker: It is not infrequent for Ministers to explore the possibility of making a statement and then not make that statement, for all sorts of reasons — timetabling or whatever. Explanations are not normally given. My understanding is that the statement has not been cancelled. It is simply not being made today. It will be for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to decide whether to beg leave to make that statement at a later stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Office of first minister and deputy first minister

Programme for Government

Mr Joe Byrne: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made in the preparation and construction of an integrated programme for government.
(AQO 13/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: On 29June, just one month after taking office again, we announced our agenda for Government, setting out early actions which would be taken across the range of the Executive’s responsibilities in the remainder of this year. The Programme for Government will focus on the longer-term. During the summer, the Executive Committee had initial discussions about the broad nature, principles and structure of the Programme for Government. It also consulted Assembly Committees, social partners and other stakeholders in our public services on their views on the key priorities of this programme. The consultative exercises have been valuable in helping to inform the development of the draft programme. As part of the consultation process, a conference has been arranged for 2October with social partners and a range of other stakeholders in key public services.
The Programme for Government is a completely new development in the administration of Northern Ireland. It will provide a clear understanding of what is expected from the Executive as a whole in terms of policies and programmes. The programme will take a Government- wide view and not be based on a series of departmental inputs. We will continue to work further on the programme in the coming weeks with the intention of submitting a draft of the associated Budget proposals to the Assembly in mid-October for consideration.
On Thursday, Ministers will be taking a half day away from the office to develop the programme further. It is our intention to provide a six-week period for the Assembly to scrutinise the programme.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s statement and thank him for its content. Does he agree that the people of Northern Ireland are eagerly awaiting the contents of the Programme for Government because they want to see this devolved Administration deliver real change and a better standard of living for all sections of the people?
Does the Minister accept that an integrated Programme for Government, incorporating an agreed approach among Departments, is essential, so that the people can feel the impact and experience the net benefits of better public services and job prospects? Finally, can the Minister outline how he envisages that the negotiation machinery will operate to collectively agree a Programme for Government given the political challenge that this poses when two Ministers are somewhat detached from the Executive?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his questions. I agree that the people of the North of Ireland, and indeed this Assembly, await the Programme for Government with considerable interest. It is crucial to have the collective view of the Executive as to where it will be going and the type of policy positions it will adopt. I believe that a wide range of policies can only have real impact if we think beyond departmental barriers, and if a number of Departments bring their resources to bear in a co-ordinated way. That is the only way to deal with many of the stubborn social and economic problems that we face.
The Programme for Government provides a major opportunity to address this type of issue and to signal how we will work together in the Executive.
In relation to the latter part of the question, the Programme for Government will be the collective will of the Executive, and a party which does not participate in Executive meetings can hardly expect to bring the same influence to bear on it as those which do.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could not even agree on writing a statement on their visit to the White House last week — mainly because the Deputy First Minister once again made a fool of the First Minister on the issue of policing. Given that, can the Deputy First Minister tell the Assembly what chance there is of an agreed Programme for Government that will have to accommodate the policies of IRA/Sinn Féin? It is part of the Executive because of the weakness of the First Minister’s party in admitting it in the first place.
The First Minister claims that DUP Ministers are sitting down with Sinn Féin in government to agree a Programme for Government. Would the Deputy First Minister confirm to the House that that is not the case?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I can say very clearly to the Member — and I think that this is what is at the heart of his question — that the DUP Ministers are not pulling their weight collectively in the Executive. I can assure him of that. That is a tragedy. It is sad for the Executive and for the entire community. However, I have to say that the collective element within the Programme for Government is not something that anybody should take pride in staying outside of — because by staying outside one is actually staying outside the needs of all of the people of the North of Ireland. Rather than taking pleasure or expressing pride in the refusal to be part of the collective decision-making process and of sharing collective responsibility, people should be looking at their positions and asking themselves how best they, as a party and its Ministers, can contribute to the welfare of everyone in the North of Ireland.

Mr James Leslie: An integrated Programme for Government would be welcome, in view of the substantive debate which was taking place earlier today and which is to be continued. How does the Deputy First Minister intend to bring forward an integrated transport programme to address some of the concerns mentioned earlier, in the absence of the Minister responsible?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Member for his question to which there are two obvious parts. We are all aware of the damage that has been done in relation to the question of fuel prices. We are unique in Northern Ireland — not only do we have the high burden of taxation, we also have the factors that derive from the border between North and South.
The second thing is in relation to the substantial elements of transport. It is crucial that we get this right and that we all agree in budgetary and policy terms how to deal with the problem. An example would be the issue of transport in terms of the British/Irish Council meeting. Have we seen the DUP Minister make any contribution to that? It will also be a matter for serious consideration at the next North/South Ministerial Council plenary session in Dublin. Will we have a DUP input there? No, of course we will not. This Executive, in its collectivity, will have to take on board those decisions that will be made about transport and other issues. It cannot be allowed to act to the detriment of people in the North of Ireland because of a political party’s policy stance, rather than the political input by Ministers.

Weapons Decommissioning

Mr Nigel Dodds: 2. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what reports they have received since the beginning of the summer recess on the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry.
(AQO 30/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) was established by Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Irish Republic to deal with and report on the decommissioning of terrorist weapons. The IICD has made a number of reports, including one on 11 February 2000. On 6 May 2000 the IRA gave a commitment to
"initiate a process that will completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use."
It also, in that statement, said that it would
"put in place within weeks a confidence-building measure to confirm that our weapons remain secure."
Following this, on 15 May 2000, the Secretary of State wrote
"the Government expect the IICD to make regular reports, whose contents must be for the IICD to determine. These will be published promptly by the two Governments."
On 25 June 2000, the IICD reported that it had been informed by President Ahtisaari and MrRamaphosa that they had successfully completed an inspection of several IRA weapons dumps. The IICD stated that the inspectors reported that they were shown
"a substantial quantity of IRA arms, including explosives, that the weapons are secure and cannot be used without their becoming aware that this has happened."

Mr Nigel Dodds: It is interesting that all the dates quoted are prior to the summer recess, so the answer to the question I asked is zero, as far as reports are concerned. The First Minister could have been a bit more honest. Is it not a scandal for the First Minister to admit by implication — for he would not do so in his own words — that since the 22 May 2000 deadline for the completion of the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weaponry, there has not been a single report from the body set up to deal with the issue? When can we expect such a report? Will the First Minister accept that the IRA/Sinn Féin movement has no intention of decommissioning? In light of his manifesto commitment during the European election in relation to IRA/Sinn Féin that if there was no hand-in of guns there would be no hand-in-government for IRA/Sinn Féin, will he now apologise to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland for so grossly deceiving them?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The IICD did make a report after May, as I pointed out.
The Member who posed the question and supplementary should take account of the fact that some progress has occurred. The progress, as we know it, is not decommissioning in the full sense of the word. I would have thought that anyone who actually wanted to see decommissioning — and I am not at all persuaded that the Assembly Member who asked the question actually wants to see it — would welcome the progress made.
They would have further noted that the Ramaphosa/ Ahtisaari team indicated they would continue to make regular reports on this issue, and they would look forward to further reports occurring. In the absence of such reports there would be a serious problem with regard to confidence on this matter. However, the Member ignores the very simple fact that we know there is a bottom line. I have already demonstrated that the Ulster Unionist Party will stick to that bottom line. I do not want to have to repeat that demonstration, but those parties who ought to be proceeding with decommissioning should not be in any doubt as to our determination.

Mr David McClarty: Does the First Minister find the DUP’s position with regard to decommissioning puzzling? Does he agree that since the DUP is working all the structures of this Assembly, it is in fact acting like a half-pregnant woman — someone who says she is a bit pregnant, but not totally. Similarly, does he agree that the DUP is enjoying the luxuries of Assembly positions while decommissioning has yet to take place? Is its position therefore not totally contradictory and confusing to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr Speaker: Order. The purpose of Question Time is to provide an opportunity to put questions and seek out information from the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and other Ministers. I will try, on behalf of the Assembly, to resist attempts to turn it into something different.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I said in my reply to the original supplementary, there is, as far as the Ulster Unionist Party is concerned, a bottom line which we stuck to. The truth of the matter with regard to the DUP is that there is no bottom line at all. It will participate in Government irrespective of decommissioning. It has made it clear that it will hold on to its seats in Government irrespective of what happens. If that is not the case, let it say so, and let it deal with the statement made by the Member for East Belfast, who said "the priority is not to get decommissioning." That is the DUP position. The priority is not to get decommissioning. Let it face that.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: As we come to consider normalisation, does the First Minister agree that a potential peace dividend arises if the Ministry of Defence sites can be returned to civil use? Will he encourage the Secretary of State —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to rule that the question is not in order. It is a supplementary well wide of the original questions. We must move to the next question.

Civic Forum

Mr Seamus Close: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if a statement on progress towards establishing the Civic Forum will be made.
(AQO 25/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: We remain confident that the target date for establishing the Civic Forum in early October will be met. A number of matters remain to be resolved, but the First Minister and I hope to be in a position to make a statement on 25 September setting out the latest state of play regarding the first meeting, the venue for the first meeting, the chairmanship and the nominations for the Civic Forum.

Mr Seamus Close: Can the Deputy First Minister advise the House what particular problems have been encountered in the establishment of the Forum? Can we look forward to its establishment and see that fairness and equality in the appointments have been its hallmark?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I am not in a position to specify the problems the various organisations may have had to face. That is a matter for them. It is not a matter we would be privy to. I am confident that the standards we notified to the consortia in terms of selection criteria have been adhered to.
I look forward to joining the First Minister in reporting to the Assembly soon on the various factors I mentioned, including personnel. There have been representations from various sectors on their specific interests. These sectors have included the unemployed, the homeless, those dealing with poverty, young people, students, members of minority religions, those dealing with sexual orientation and health professionals. We asked all the consortia to deal with each matter raised in the representations and with other issues. I hope we will find that this has happened when we make the final assessment.

Mr George Savage: Does the Deputy First Minister agree that the agriculture industry is going to be inadequately represented on the Civic Forum? Will consideration be given to increasing membership from the rural community?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I can think of no other sector that needs to be represented as adequately as the agriculture sector. We should wait and see what happens with all the nominations. The Assembly resolved to allocate three places to agriculture and fisheries representatives. Those figures will be re-examined in 12 months’ time when we review all the workings of the Forum. I am not suggesting that we, collectively, got it exactly right when we adopted the motion moved by the First Minister and myself. We got it fairly right, but if time shows that there is a deficiency, we will correct it.

Mr Speaker: Will Members refrain from asking questions to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. Questions should be directed to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and not to one or other of them.

Mr Edwin Poots: Can the First and Deputy First Ministers confirm that a selection list for the 18 community representatives has already been drawn up, that that list is biased against the Unionist community, and that representatives of the gay and lesbian community have been given equal status to those representing older people, youth and women? Can they also confirm that the Irish language has been included on this list while Ulster-Scots and the Unionist and Orange culture have been given no such position? That situation can only be remedied when MrTrimble nominates his people.

Mr Seamus Mallon: The selection for the consortia was an onerous task, and we did not turn it into a trawl of the various prejudices, as the Member seems to be doing. That would have created a series of grievances and prejudices rather than the new, different dynamic in the political life of Northern Ireland that we should have. The Assembly agreed the criteria, the numbers and how the Civic Forum would proceed. We are trying to implement this now, and I would refrain from any further comment about nominations until we have the definitive list in front of us, which will be very soon.

Mr Alban Maginness: Will the First and the Deputy First Ministers ensure that young people, such a vital sector in our society, and the disadvantaged, who are normally voiceless, are adequately represented in the Civic Forum?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The First Minister and I agree that if the Civic Forum functions properly it will be a place where people whose voices are not normally able to be heard will be heard loudly and to constructive effect. It is essential that we have young people in that Forum.
It is essential that we get their dimension on the new future that we are trying to build, and they have more of a stake in the new future than we have. In terms of the disadvantaged — the unemployed, the homeless and those dealing with poverty — it is essential that they are present. Those voices have to be heard, and we have to ensure that they are able to make their views known.

Mr Speaker: Members have made rather heavy weather of the questions. We have only reached number three. We should move on to the next question.

Women’s Centres

Mrs Eileen Bell: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister if a statement on the current funding of women’s centres in Northern Ireland will be made.
(AQO 24/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: Funding for the range of project work undertaken by women’s centres comes from a wide variety of sources both public and private but mainly from European Union programmes, health and social services trusts, the Training and Employment Agency, the National Lottery, charitable trusts and private sector sponsorship. Current public sector funding includes £60,000 European social fund assistance to support IT training for women, £37,000 from the European social fund and £5,000 from the European regional development fund for Belfast Women’s Training Services employment link project. In addition to this, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety provides grants to support specific projects amounting to a total of almost £800,000.
The responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is for policy development in relation to women’s issues. In 1998 the women’s support network commissioned research on the women’s centres. The research was funded by the Equality Commission. The report has been produced but has not yet been approved by the Equality Commission and the group managing the research. A meeting with the junior Ministers in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has been arranged for Tuesday 19September 2000. It should be noted that, at this time, no provision exists for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to fund women’s centres.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive answer. I am aware that it is not the direct responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister but wish to make the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister aware that, in spite of the moneys just listed, the future of many women’s groups, including those well established, is now in grave jeopardy because of the present difficulties with European funding. Many well-established groups have been turned down by the National Lottery, and I ask that that be discussed at the meeting with the women’s support network.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sure that the matters to which the Member has referred will be discussed at those meetings, and we shall look forward to whatever developments flow from that. I appreciate the point that she makes with regard to gap funding, but she will recall that, when we announced the agenda for Government earlier this year, £2 million was made available to bridge gaps in European Union funding for some voluntary bodies between programmes. The funders, including central Government Departments, have prioritised the applications for gap funding. There are a total of 924 applications, including some from women’s centres, and the applicants are presently being notified of the outcome.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the emergency funding for women’s groups administered by the Department for Social Development. Will the Minister tell this House what is being done to maintain women’s centre services, which are a valuable asset to the communities? Further, will the First Minister offer assurance that there will be gender equality when it comes to seriously addressing the gender issue in the Northern Ireland Civil Service?

Rt Hon David Trimble: In relation to the first point, there is some provision for gap funding. It is unlikely to be adequate for all of the applications that will be made, but we are conscious of the issues.
With regard to gender, in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister a gender policy unit was established in July to take forward cross-departmental policy and strategy development relating to gender equality. The new unit will act as a liaison point with the extensive network of non- governmental organisations in this area, especially with women’s groups. It will also contribute expertise on equality in relation to gender, sexual orientation, dependants and marital status, and provide advice and guidance to Departments with regard to monitoring their policies for equality in those areas, and will encourage and monitor the development of projects sponsored for European structural fund support.
With regard to the Northern Ireland Civil Service, as of January 1999 the overall gender breakdown was 52% male and 48% female. For a variety of reasons, many of them historical, there is still significant female under-representation in senior grades.

Electronic Delivery of Government Services

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress their Department is making towards reaching the UK Government target of delivering 25% of Government services electronically by October 2002.
(AQO 26/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: We have stated our support for electronic service delivery and for setting meaningful and challenging targets for the Northern Ireland Departments. We have therefore committed Northern Ireland Departments to the principles of electronic government that underline the Prime Minister’s targets for electronic delivery of service. In October 1997 the Prime Minister set a target
"that by 2002, 25% of all dealings with Government are to be done by a member of the public electronically, through their telephone, TV or computer."
Analysis in Northern Ireland last year, based, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, on a selection of services, indicated that we would significantly exceed that target. In March 2000 the target was changed, the emphasis now being that 25% of all key services should be capable of being delivered by 2002, increasing to 100% in 2005. "Key services" are defined as those which result in a high number of transactions with citizens, provide high-value services to citizens or businesses or oblige the citizen or business to transact with the public sector — for example, the payment of road tax. As with other devolved Administrations, we are reviewing key services to ensure that our targets are appropriate to Northern Ireland. In consultation with the Departments who will deliver these services, we shall prepare revised targets and develop a monitoring regime for agreement by the Executive in the autumn.

Mr David Ford: I thank the First Minister for that helpful and positive answer. He said we were ahead of the field by being ahead of the initial 25% target. Can he name any areas where Northern Ireland has been able to run a pilot scheme, or proposes to do so, which might be an example for the slower people on the other side of the water?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I must apologise to the Member, but I am not in a position to give an answer. I shall look into the matter and write to him if there is such a pilot scheme or there might potentially be one. I should like to add to my statement on achieving the targets that the spread of what one might term electronic and computer literacy in the community as a whole is important. Northern Ireland is below the UK average. There is something to be done by the wider community in that respect.

Mrs Joan Carson: Can the Ministers see any role or devise any plans for the delivery of electronic services through rural post offices, something which would be of advantage to the rural community?

Rt Hon David Trimble: One of the advantages we have in Northern Ireland is the very extensive and high- quality communications network. With the development of broad band technology we would be in a position to provide services of that nature throughout the rural community. As to the specific point on post offices, that is a matter which we may want to take up again.

Mr Speaker: Members may wonder why I have allowed proceedings to continue until shortly after three o’clock. There was a point of order from Mr Dodds. When such points are raised, they do not eat into the time. The clock is stopped in that sense, even though the real clock continues. However, the time is now up for questions to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and we now move on.

Mr Jim Shannon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Deputy First Minsiter continues to refer to the North of Ireland. Historically and geographically —

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, as the Member knows perfectly well. However, I earlier mentioned the point of order that questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are to both, not to one of them. I have ruled on that point of order in this sitting.

Mr Jim Shannon: This is the Northern Ireland Assembly, not the North of Ireland Assembly.

Regional Development

Mr Speaker: Order. We move on to questions to the Minister for Regional Development. I must inform Members that Question 1 to the Minister for Regional Development, standing in the name of Mr McGrady, should have been directed to the Minister of the Environment. That question will now receive a written answer from that Department.
Similarly, OralQuestion 8, again to the Minister for Regional Development, standing in the name of MrEdwinPoots, should have been directed to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That question will now receive a written answer from that Department.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling, as I am not unduly concerned by it. I would like to point out that planning in its entirety, covering the whole of the south-east of Ulster, to which that question relates, is definitely a regional problem and must be answered in the context of regional planning. Therefore I am puzzled as to why it should be transferred for answer by another Department. Secondly, it would have been courteous of that Department to have advised us that they were transferred questions.

Mr Speaker: I will take up the second point to ensure that this kind of difficulty or embarrassment does not arise again. On the matter of the allocation by the FirstMinister and the DeputyFirst Minister of the responsibilities of the Departments, that is well outside my remit. We must simply abide by the rules.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Painting of Department Property

Mr Alban Maginness: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will consider the introduction of measures to prohibit the painting of kerbstones and the road fixtures which are the property of the Department with partisan or sectarian colours.
(AQO 32/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member for NorthBelfast will be aware that I do not condone any unauthorised use of the Department’s property. He will also be aware that the problem of graffiti, including the painting of kerbstones and road fixtures, is prevalent throughout Northern Ireland. Measures were introduced to prohibit such painting. It is an offence, under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, for any person without lawful authority, to paint on public roads, kerbstones or other road fixtures. Prohibition of painting on public properties, whether they be roads, kerbstones or other property belonging to the Department is not a problem that my Department alone can resolve. It will require a general consensus and strong local support. The Roads Service will, however, remove graffiti or sectarian symbols erected illegally on its property that are a danger to road users. Where there is no danger we will seek to remove such material on the advice of the RUC and where there is strong local support. To act without local support is likely to lead to a proliferation of such material and put at risk the safety of staff tasked with the removal work. There is also the question of cost.

Mr Alban Maginness: I agree with the Minister that it is not simply a matter for his Department; it is a general problem facing the community. The laissez-faire attitude adopted by the Department, which is represented in his answer, simply allows the reinforcement of sectarian attitudes and the concept of sectarian territoriality in our society. It continues the rather offensive practice of painting kerbs, which is off-putting to potential investors, particularly in urban areas, and leads to greater problems for the various communities.
The Minister said that local communities should in some way give their consent. Is the Minister in a position to investigate how local communities could be effectively and properly consulted? This would allow them to give their opinion on this rather primitive and sectarian practice of daubing pavements, not just in urban areas but also throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr Gregory Campbell: First of all, I will reiterate the attitude of my Department, and it is not a laissez-faire attitude: any illegal painting of kerbstones and road fixtures should to be removed where possible. The Member has had some previous correspondence on this with my Department, and they have described to him how measures have already been put in place to remove some of the graffiti he refers to.
How local communities might come together to try to further this cause is something that will have a much wider remit than that of the Department for Regional Development. My Department has a functional responsibility to remove the graffiti, on advice from the RUC, where it is a hazard to road users, bearing in mind the safety of the staff tasked to carry that out. How we get local communities to come together to agree on the necessity of having it removed is a matter of much wider concern.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Can the Minister update me on the promise made by an earlier Minister to review the budget for the removal of such painting from, for example, kerbstones? Has consideration been given to the issue of community safety and to consulting with the community and statutory agencies?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I do not have up-to-date information regarding the budget, but I will write to the hon Member for North Down about it and the issue of community participation.

Fortwilliam-Knocknagoney Connection

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will consider the erection of a bridge to provide access from Fortwilliam to Knocknagoney at the Victoria Channel in Belfast.
(AQO 34/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: A bridge over the Victoria Channel, or a tunnel under it, and all the associated connecting roads would cost several hundred million pounds. These funds are not available to my Department’s Roads Service. Although a bridge or tunnel would have time savings for traffic on the M2 bound for Bangor and North Down, and vice versa, such a scheme would not have a positive cost benefit. It could not be justified when compared to the need for higher priority schemes across Northern Ireland. The need for such a scheme has, to some extent, been obviated by the construction in recent years of the Lagan Bridge, which links the M1 and M2 with the Sydenham bypass by way of the M3.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I would be a little concerned that officials may have provided him with rather scanty research information. Is he aware that some 3,000acres of underused land — land with vast economic potential — lie between the city of Belfast and the sea? Approximately 2,000 of those 3,000acres are in the possession of the Port of Belfast and were the subject of the ad hoc Committee inquiry some months ago. Is the Minister aware that there are a further 1,000acres that could be used for development? Does he not agree that it is essential for the prosperity of Greater Belfast that this land be opened up? Perhaps it could be developed along similar lines to the Foyle Bridge in his native city or the toll bridge in Dublin — or to a number of other examples in places along the east coast of the United States of America.
Does the Minister agree that such a bridge would not be solely for travel from one place to another, but that it would help to open up that area, giving people sight of those 3,000 acres of land and access to them? I am aware of, and perhaps agree with the Minister on, the amount of money that might be involved. However, I disagree with him on the benefits involved. I believe that the benefits would outweigh the cost. Does the Minister not agree that a feasibility study would be beneficial in this case, with the emphasis on the opening up of the land as much as on the transport use?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I agree with DrMcDonnell on the issue of the underutilisation of the 3,000acres. However, dealing with the specific issue of the construction of a bridge, the design and construction of such a bridge would be very difficult given the need to maintain shipping headroom in the Victoria Channel before descending to road level at Airport Road West. A large span suspension bridge might be possible.
The presence of the adjacent Belfast City Airport would impose additional strength requirements on the bridge piers, however, to cover the risk of aircraft collision. There would be massive difficulties, not least of which are the several hundred million pounds that is unavailable in my present budget.

Mr James Leslie: Has the Minister considered setting up a ferry in the area of the port? If so, can he reassure the House that he would seek to have such a ferry built by Harland and Wolff, rather than award the contract to Liverpool — as he did with the Strangford Ferry?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The specific question that was posed related to a bridge from Fortwilliam to Knocknagoney — we have not considered the possibility of a ferry. I will deal with the issue of awarding the contract for the ferry at Strangford. The Roads Service budget for the replacement ferry was set at £3 million. Tenders were invited and the lowest tender was within this budget price at £2·6 million. It was well within the target. Harland and Wolff also tendered for the contract, but its tender price was considerably in excess of the budget. EU guidelines are quite specific on value for money. I had no alternative but to award the contract to the Merseyside firm. This is good news for Strangford and Portaferry and should be welcomed by people there.

Ms Jane Morrice: Ministers are normally loathe to respond to questions which are considered wide of the mark, but if Ministers do answer those questions, they can leave themselves open to for further questions of that type.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister’s Department given consideration to the construction of a bridge at Narrow Water Point, which would link Warrenpoint in County Down with the Carlingford Peninsula?

Ms Jane Morrice: That question is ruled out of order. It is a separate issue.

Water Service Contracts

Mr William Hay: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development how much of the work originally carried out by the Water Service in-house is now contracted out to the private sector.
(AQO/14/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: With reference to its operational activities, the Water Service has been implementing a wide range of efficiency plans and programmes for over 10 years. These are essential to ensure that the Water Service continues to deliver an efficient operational service within its budget. Programmes have included market testing of a range of functions, which has resulted in some work being contracted out and some retained in-house through successful bids. This mixed economy allows comparison between in-house and contracted-out activities. Historically, private sector contractors have been engaged to support in-house operations in a range of activities. The main activities that were originally carried out in-house and have moved to the private sector include most of the grounds maintenance, building maintenance, road reinstatement, painting and decorating, and reservoir cleaning. A significant proportion of sludge tankering, sewer maintenance, street furniture repairs, service pipe repairs and water quality sample collection is also undertaken in selected areas.
Over the past three years the Water Service has paid contractors approximately £10 million per annum for services previously carried out in-house. Over the same period approximately £100 million per annum was spent on operational activities as a whole.

Mr William Hay: There are serious concerns among the workforce of the Water Service about the number of services that are being contracted out. I think that the list is longer than the one given. Can the Minister supply a total breakdown of all the work that has been contracted out by all divisions of the Water Service?
Does the Minister agree that continually contracting out Water Service work will have a serious effect on jobs in the Water Service? There is serious concern about this. How many employees were in the Water Service five years ago, and how many are there today? A considerable number of employees of the Water Service are no longer there, and that is a worry to the whole workforce.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assure the Member that I will respond in writing about the breakdown of work contracted out by division, and that will give him a clear picture. The Water Service has been engaged in recent years, particularly during the past ten years, in efficiency plans and programs that have included market testing of a range of functions. This has resulted in a similar exercise to that being undertaken by local government.

Mr Seamus Close: The Minister is obviously working hard to ensure that the privatisation of the Water Service takes place. I am rather surprised by that. Can he tell the House how much more privatisation by stealth he anticipates while he is Minister?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I realise that Mr Close is asking specific questions, but at no time have I referred, either today or on any previous occasion, to the possibility of privatisation of the Water Service. In fact, my predecessor on a number of occasions specifically precluded the possibility of its privatisation. It is not on the agenda; I have not hinted at it; I have not suggested it; and it is not taking place.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Can the Minister tell us, on the issue of the private sector, if any of the work at the Lagmore conduit, that is currently at the centre of the cryptosporidium bug problem, was carried out by the private sector?

Ms Jane Morrice: That question is wide of the mark, and I rule it out of order.

Mr Derek Hussey: I totally agree with Mr Hay’s remarks about the staff in the Water Service. In his answer to Mr Hay, the Minister referred to one of the contracted-out items as being reservoir cleaning. In view of many public concerns about water quality and safety, would that not be better handled in-house and then the Department would have much greater control.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his query. Over a number of years the Water Service has adopted an efficiency strategy. I agree with him that there have been concerns about water quality, although the issue now is about how we can best achieve the good quality water that people demand and ought to have. There is no evidence to suggest that the Water Service has departed from that in anything it has done in recent years, but I do note his comments.

Ms Mary Nelis: In light of what he has said today, can the Minister state categorically that contracting out has not produced efficiency and accountability in the Water Service and that it has not impacted on the increasing reports of the leaching of raw sewage into the water system?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I cannot confirm the comments made. As I have said repeatedly, the Water Service has embarked on efficiency plans and programmes, and it has done that year-on-year in line with similar work being carried out by local government in an effort to get best value.

Regional Strategy

Mr Alan McFarland: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development when the regional strategy will be published.
(AQO 6/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I can confirm that my Department is currently drawing together a draft text of the final regional development strategy taking account of the public examination report and the subsequent comments by the Assembly, Departments and other interested parties.
Where appropriate, discussions are taking place with other Departments about key sections which impact upon them. This will take a few more weeks. Further consultation with the Regional Development Committee will be required.
The regional development strategy will be a critically important and over-arching document which, when adopted, will set out a framework within which the region can develop over the next 25 years. It will have implications for all parts of Government and the private sector. The aim, therefore, is to complete the political process for approval of the final regional development strategy before the Christmas recess in order to achieve publication in early 2001.

Mr Alan McFarland: I thank the Minister for his answer. There are strong indications that the level of awareness among other Departments of the implications of the regional strategy is somewhat limited. Some plans have been published but little notice is being taken of them. If the regional strategy is to be a success all Departments need to be involved with it. What steps is the Minister going to take to ensure that all Departments are signed up and will comply with the regional strategy?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Member will be aware that we are required by law to take that into account. In a few weeks’ time we hope to be in a position to finalise the document and bring it before the Regional Development Committee. It should be ready for publication immediately after Christmas recess.

Mr John Dallat: Will the Minister assure the House that the strategy will be of the highest quality, and that communication in the Minister’s Department and between the Department and others, will ensure that the strategy will not suffer serious defects? Can he assure us that we will not have another incident which could provide a storyline for an episode of Ballykissangel — where there are no sheep on the mountain and cardboard ones are made?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assure Mr Dallat that a series of consultations were undertaken. They were significant and substantial across Northern Ireland, in local government and with the Regional Development Committee. Regarding quality, the strategy will be brought before the House and I look forward to the extensive support that no doubt will exist then.

Mr Pat McNamee: A LeasCheann Comhairle. In considering the regional strategy, can the Minister assure the Assembly that he has given due consideration to the imbalance in the allocation of resources in areas west of the Bann and in border counties? Can he assure us that the Regional Strategy will reflect that consideration?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I reiterate what I said regarding the consultation — every local district borough council was consulted, east and west of the Bann, north and south of Northern Ireland. Every one of them was comprehensively and systematically consulted.

Cryptosporidium

Mr Joe Byrne: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development what measures have been taken to ensure the highest possible standard of domestic water supply following the recent outbreak of cryptosporidium in Belfast and Lisburn.
(AQO 12/00)

Mr Seamus Close: 11. asked the Minister for Regional Development if he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of the cryptosporidium bug in water in parts of Greater Belfast.
(AQO 22/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Madam Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will take questions 7 and 11 together.
I made a comprehensive statement to the Assembly on 11 September 2000 regarding the cryptosporidium outbreak in the Lisburn and south west Lisburn area. In my statement, I detailed the work that was taking place in investigating possible sources of contamination and in securing the system from any further problems.
I am pleased to be able to report that a meeting of the outbreak control team held today reviewed the latest results of water samples taken from the Lagmore conduit. They are satisfied that the danger has now passed. Work has recently been completed on bypassing part of the Lagmore conduit, where it is believed the water was contaminated, and clean water is now flowing into the Poleglass reservoir and other reservoirs in the area. This has been a worrying incident for people in the area affected, and I regret that many people became ill. In accordance with established procedures, the outbreak control team will be providing a detailed report on the incident. The Water Service will be working closely with the consultant for communicable disease control and other members of the team in doing this. Water supplies are now back to normal, and everyone in the area affected can be assured that tap water is safe to drink and for all-purpose use.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for his statement. However, the public want assurance from him that Water Service officials are going to be asked to examine all pipes and reservoirs to try to minimise the potential for any outbreak of cryptosporidium again. It is very important that the public are reassured that, if there is a breakage in a pipe by a private developer or contractor, it will be immediately examined so that we do not have a problem later.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his question, but may I remind him that in NorthernIreland we have 15,000 miles of pipes and a systematic examination of every inch or millimetre is very difficult. I ask the hon Member and the House to bear all of these queries in mind when it comes to the allocation of budget, when it comes to resources that require to be made available in terms of the Water Service. The underfunding that has existed for 30years has, in part, led to some of the difficulties we are now facing. I expect and hope to get the support for the necessary funds to ensure that we are not faced with any outbreak of a similar nature again.

Mr Seamus Close: Recent information seems to throw doubt on the part of the Minister’s statement which pointed to a particular house and the break in the sewage pipe in Lisburn. If the break into the sewage pipe by a private dwelling was subsequently shown not to have been the cause and the members of that household were not suffering from cryptosporidosis, what, in the Minister’s opinion, was the most likely cause of the outbreak?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I assume that MrClose is referring to a statement made by an environmental health officer of Lisburn Borough Council. The Eastern Board confirmed on Tuesday 12September that a septic tank remained under consideration as a possible source of a recent outbreak of cryptosporidium in the south-west Belfast and Lisburn areas. This followed a meeting that afternoon of the multi-agency outbreak control team. The team agreed that a septic tank remained as a possible source which merited ongoing investigation.

Mr Ivan Davis: I know that the Minister is assisting the Eastern Health and Social Services Board in this matter. With regard to restoring a clean water supply, he has confirmed this afternoon that everything in that particular area seems to be going well. Can he confirm that in June2000 there was algal toxic poisoning suspected in cattle from the Lough Island Reavey water treatment works? Did a problem in the water treatment works plant produce an illegal discharge through the canal leading to the river in which the cattle were drinking? Has the Eastern Health and Social Services Board been made aware of this by the Water Service?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I hear what Mr Davis says, although I am unaware of the specific nature of this. Last Monday, when he brought a specific matter to my attention I assured him that I would respond to him in writing. I will do likewise with this one.

Ms Jane Morrice: The time is up.

The Environment

Planning (Human-Rights Law)

Mr Edwin Poots: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment if he is satisfied that the current system of planning and appeals in his Department will meet the requirements of the proposed new human-rights legislation.
(AQO 9/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department has been examining the current system of planning and appeals in Northern Ireland in the context of human rights legislation and believes that current arrangements will meet the requirements of that legislation. This, of course, is an evolving area, and in consultation with relevant Departments throughout the United Kingdom, I will continue to keep procedures and policy under review.

Mr Edwin Poots: Is the Minister aware that a case has already been taken against the Scottish Executive under the human rights legislation, and that that case was lost by the Scottish Executive? The situation in Northern Ireland is that the Planning Service can overrule the decisions of the Planning Appeals Commission. Does he believe that in that situation, human rights legislation will rule against this Administration as it did against the Scottish Administration?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of the current interest in human rights and the possible implications for the planning process. We will be keeping related policies under review. I must emphasise, again, that my Department, in consultation with its legal advisors and with relevant Departments in Great Britain, has examined its key processes and procedures. My Department is generally satisfied that current procedures will meet the European Convention on Human Rights requirements.

Planning: Mobile Telecommunications Masts

Mr Eddie McGrady: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make a statement on the planning implications of mobile telecommunications masts, in view of recommendations contained in the Stewart Report published in May 2000.
(AQO 5/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I am conscious that planning arrangements for mobile phone masts are a matter of public concern. I am very much aware of it in my own part of the country. I am minded to require full planning permission for all mobile phone masts. However, before coming to a final decision, I wish to consult relevant interests and propose to do so by way of a consultation paper to be issued before the end of October.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for his reply. The Minister has indicated that the Stewart Report will be published, presumably in a short while. Would he be of a mind to take the main recommendation of that report, which says that in the case of
"All base stations, including those with masts under 15 metres, permitted development rights should be revoked and withdrawn and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to full planning permission"?
Is he also aware that the Stewart report indicates a total criticism of the lack of protocol in how planning applications are handled, and that changes are urgently required in the planning process? Will he have the departmental personnel and expertise to carry out these recommendations?

Mr Sam Foster: This is a difficult area. It concerns many people. In March 1999 the National Radiological Protection Board was asked to set up an independent expert working group to assess the current state of research into possible health risks from mobile phones. I want to emphasise that all mobile telecommunications masts are subject to planning control. Masts over 15 metres in height require my Department’s express planning permission under the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Most telecommunication masts under 15 metres are permitted development under the Planning and General Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. My Department’s prior approval is required only on location and design
Under the prior approval procedure my Department has 42days within which to issue a decision on applications for ground-based masts, and 28days for all other types of telecommunications equipment. I cannot say that I will be withdrawing any already granted approval, to answer MrMcGrady. The consultation paper will be issued before the end of October and will include a draft planning policy statement setting out the Department’s proposed policies for telecommunications development. The difficulty, and this applies to all Members is that many of us carry mobile phones around with us. If we were not getting good communications there would be a real hullabaloo. I take the point that there are great fears in the community about health risks.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has indicated that consultation will start in October. How long will this consultation process take and when does he hope to bring a report back to the Assembly? Also, will the concerns of local people be taken into account? What part will they play in the consultation process in relation to planning applications being granted? In the past, many people objected to applications but they still went ahead.

Mr Sam Foster: The Northern Ireland consultation will include a draft planning policy statement, and this will take a little time to develop. I can see it happening early in the new year. The Northern Ireland consultation will include a draft planning policy statement, and this has inevitably taken some time to develop. However, this should assist the consultation. Applicants for planning permission to erect telecommunications masts are entitled to have my Department make a determination. It would not be proper to postpone this decision-making process pending the development of planning policy in this area. I want to emphasise again that we are very concerned with it, but it does not all come under the Planning Service. There are health issues involved as well. So there are a couple of Departments involved in this.

Mr Seamus Close: This issue is one which greatly concerns many people and, as the Minister has already said, there are health implications. Therefore I find it rather sad that there is a dismissive attitude, that we cannot do this, that and the other thing, while people’s health is being put at risk. I say that as one who does not and will not carry a mobile phone. Does the Minister not agree that the ease with which these mobile telecommunications masts get planning permission, particularly under the prior approval procedures, has led to a proliferation of the masts throughout Northern Ireland, and that this in turn is creating radiation smog which is endangering the health of the entire community? What is he, as Minister, going to do to ensure that the voice of the people is listened to in their strong objections to such a proliferation of these masts? Is he further aware that, even when a council unanimously objects to the planning permission being granted for such masts, the Department goes ahead willy-nilly and grants permission over the head of the people and its elected representatives? Surely he would agree with me that this is no way in which such a serious issue should be dealt with.

Mr Sam Foster: I take exception to the fact that we do things willy-nilly. That is entirely wrong. My Department performs its work professionally in a dedicated fashion, and we take cognisance of representations made to us. We are not taking this lightly — I have got to make that point. As I said earlier, in answer to MrMcGrady, health issues are the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Advice provided by that Department is that in areas readily accessible to the public there is no convincing evidence of a causal link between health risk and exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with mobile telecommunications masts. Any further advice or guidelines will be fully taken into account by the Planning Service. We do not — I repeat: do not — take this lightly. It is a difficult issue, and we understand that. We do take cognisance of the complaints made by people and the fears which people have.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister referred to electromagnetic radiation and thermal radiation. From the Stewart report we can see that there is also great concern about the long-term effects of non-thermal radiation. Stewart talks about the precautionary approach being exercised with regard to telecommunication masts. Will that form the basis of the Department’s approach until proper consultation is carried out?

Mr Sam Foster: Of course, it will warrant a precautionary approach and great thought. I must emphasise this. We do not take this lightly. All matters are taken into consideration. We know there are fears, but nothing in the Stewart report confirms anything absolute at all, we have to take that into consideration. This issue is not being taken lightly. We are looking at it in depth, and all aspects will be taken into consideration during the assessment procedure.

Rural Planning

Mr John Dallat: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment if he agrees that opportunities to develop an intergovernmental approach to rural planning must be encouraged, and if he will encourage a holistic approach to planning issues so that rural generation has the support and encouragement of all relevant Departments, agencies and cross-border bodies.
(AQO 31/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Many strands of Government have a role to play in rural planning and regeneration, and a holistic approach is certainly to be encouraged. I can assure the Member of my support for such an approach to planning and cross-cutting issues.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the Minister’s assurance. Coming from a rural area, he understands better than many the particular problems of the rural community and how the planning laws, as they are presently interpreted, impact on the rights of people. The most basic right of any individual after the right to life is the right to shelter. At the moment, families on low incomes are finding it exceptionally difficult to bid for those sites that are available.
The Minister has acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining planning permission in rural areas and how this threatens the lives of rural schools, churches and shops. It in no way helps the regeneration of rural communities. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I do hope that he exercises control over all his Department so that this very serious issue is addressed in the future.

Mr Sam Foster: Coming from a rural area, I am well aware of the problems in the countryside, and MrDallat made mention of those. It is important that Departments work together on this. I also endorse the concept of a living and working countryside as set out in the draft regional strategic framework and agree that we should seek to promote a strong mixed-use rural economy. For example, in 1999-2000, 86% of applications for new houses in the countryside were approved. This represents more than 4,000 new dwellings in the countryside.
However, we have to be very careful that there is a good balance, that we marry one with the other. We do not want the countryside spoilt. I know that there are issues concerning rural areas and the people feel very strongly about them. These are taken into consideration in our planning policy.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Is the Minister considering any measures that would relax the stringent and at times oppressive planning controls in the countryside, especially when farmers are seeking planning permission for additional rural dwellings? Will he assure the House that he will examine ways to relax such stringent control?

Mr Sam Foster: There is provision at this time for extra houses in rural areas so long as they are not within an area of special control or a green-belt. In those cases special circumstances must prevail for permission to be granted. This has been referred to as a cross-cutting issue, and I must emphasise the responsibilities here of both the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for general rural development. The Department for Regional Development will be responsible for preparing a planning policy statement on the countryside. My Department will contribute appropriately to the development of these policies. We will work in conjunction with them.

Mr Derek Hussey: As regards rural regeneration, the Department of Agriculture and Rural development, through its Area Based Strategy Action Groups, is encouraging farmers to diversify. These farmers find themselves coming up against the planners, who are putting difficulties in the way of their efforts at rural regeneration. I support what Mr Paisley Jnr has said with regard to housing, but will the Minister give us an answer with regard to actual regeneration in the business sense?

Mr Sam Foster: As I have said, my Department will contribute appropriately to the development of these policies, along with the two Departments referred to earlier. It is likely to be parties such as the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, rather than the Planning Service, that would initiate rural regeneration projects, including those involving agricultural diversification, but success can depend on a holistic approach being taken by a number of public and private-sector interests. The Planning Service is generally confined to a facilitating role within the confines of rural planning policy. As a local councillor, I have every sympathy with the farming community in many aspects; but we adhere to policies. We do facilitate, but only where it is the proper locating and design of a development. We will help where we can, but we have to adhere to the policies that already exist.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: The Minister expressed sympathy for the rural community and planning in the rural community, and yet he is almost satisfied with the statistics put out by the planning department for the number of permissions given. Some rural areas in Northern Ireland are dealt with more severely than others, and my view is that those statistics shield that. Does the Minister agree that centralist Department strategists have an urban mindset which militates against the rural dweller being able to live, work and rear his children in areas of special control and outstanding natural beauty? These classifications make it fairly difficult for farmers to look after their families properly in those areas. Does the Minister agree that what we all need to do is to inject more of the rural thinking into the Department’s decision-making?

Mr Sam Foster: I thank the Member for his statement. I am not so sure what the question was. I am fully aware of the difficulties, and I sympathise with them, but we have to work as far as we possibly can within policy. The rural planning strategy also contains policy statements which aim to facilitate economic development and diversification in the rural economy, particularly in agriculture. There still is, within the policy, room for a retirement bungalow to be built on farmland. Sometimes one gets the impression that we are stifling every development. I know how difficult it is. I have stood at site meetings in the countryside, and I have questioned various decisions. However, I also take into consideration that people are adhering to planning policy. We do try to facilitate building where it is suitable, appropriate, and does not despoil the countryside.

Out-of-Town Shopping Centres

Mrs Eileen Bell: 4. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make a statement on planning policy regarding out-of-town shopping centres.
(AQO 15/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Current planning policy is set out in planning policy statement 5 entitled (PPS5)‘Retailing and Town Centres’, which includes the objectives of sustaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of town centres and of maintaining an efficient, competitive and innovative retail sector. The Department for Regional Development is proposing to review this in the near future, and as part of that process, the views and comments of all interested parties will be invited. My Department will contribute appropriately to that review in the light of its experience in applying the policy.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his answer although I would like to hear more about the actual policy.
Can he confirm that the Sprucefield shopping centre is, at this stage, the only agreed out-of-town shopping centre and that applications such as D5 are null and void?

Mr Sam Foster: The out-of-town shopping centre at Sprucefield is, as far as I am aware, the only one. So far as D5 is concerned, I do not wish to make any further comment as my Department is seeking the advice of senior counsel.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It recognises the important issue that, in a relatively fixed total retail market, the GB multiple chains are doing great damage to the smaller, mainly independent, retailers in our town and city centres. Would the Minister agree that in developing a Departmental policy there should be some awareness of the competition aspect arising from locating out-of-town shopping centres near to town centres? They tend to be dominated by two major GB multiples, which now have a very large share of Northern Ireland’s total grocery market. That is potentially damaging the interests of consumers and the farming sector.

Mr Sam Foster: There are big issues out there. There are issues of competition. The Department for Regional Development is undertaking a strategic review of PPS5 in the near future. That will afford an opportunity for the entire retail planning policy framework to be reconsidered. In the meantime, the planning service must work within the policy context provided by PPS5 and, where appropriate, the statutory development plans.
While retail planning policy is precautionary in respect of town centres, in principle it precludes retail development not outside town centres but inside the urban development limit, where the policy tests of PPS5 are met. These policy tests include consideration of the type of retailing proposed; the availability of suitable alternative sites in the town centre; the impact of the proposed development and a range of other more general material planning considerations. Consequently, there are circumstances when it is deemed appropriate for major retail developments such as retail warehousing to be located away from town.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Mr Sammy Wilson: I note what the Minister has said about the present planning policy in respect of out-of-town shopping centres and the emphasis on maintaining the vitality of town centres. Given that the D5 proposal was shown to affect not just town centres, but arterial shopping areas in Belfast and other parts of north Down, why is his Department so determined to pursue this proposal? It is a proposal which has been thwarted by actions in the court and which is clearly contrary to the Belfast urban area plan and the Belfast harbour plan?

Mr Sam Foster: As I said earlier, as regards D5 my Department is seeking the advice of senior counsel in relation to the recent high court decision. Until that advice has been considered, it would be premature for me to make any further comment. I would emphasise that the planning service takes into consideration all aspects of planning — it does not take things lightly. All aspects are fully examined, assessed, professionally tested and a proper decision is taken.

Mr Speaker: As we have had only four questions thus far and we have only a few minutes left, I think we must try to get through one or two more.

Waste Management

Mr David Ford: 5. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the regional waste management strategy.
(AQO 17/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Since the launch of the waste management strategy in March, a number of key activities have taken place. Three waste management planning groups, comprising the 26 district councils, have formed and are progressing with preparing plans for a new waste infrastructure. Additionally, my officials have advanced work on the publication of a planning policy statement on waste management. My Department has requested district councils to indicate their proposals for dealing with essential interim capacity needs, pending the preparation of their waste management plans.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for that response, but is that a good enough situation to be in? The strategy was launched by MrHowarth in March, during the period of suspension of devolution. During the last six months, the situation, particularly in the Greater Belfast area, has become ever more acute regarding the lack of available sites for waste dumping. There is no movement towards significant recycling schemes. There is no movement on additional landfill sites. Could the Minister please explain how quickly he expects councils to come up with proposals and why his Department has not expedited them?

Mr Sam Foster: The waste management strategy for Northern Ireland was, as MrFord stated, first published in March2000. The strategy must comply with the EU Waste Framework Directive and it is not something we take lightly. We must ensure that we are doing the right thing. The strategy is based on four key objectives — reducing the amount of waste generated; making the best use of the waste generated; encouraging practices that minimise the risk of environmental damage or harm to human health; and moving waste management practices towards reuse, recycling and recovery, with disposal in a landfill site as a last resort.
It is expected that the strategy will create 1,500 jobs. It is not going as fast as some people would like, but there is a lot involved requiring a lot of consideration. It will take time, and we are pursuing the matter as fast as we possibly can.

Mr Mick Murphy: At the moment, we have a strategy of incineration proposals at local government level which is being progressively marketed by a very rich and highly powerful focused pressure group, financed by the plastic packaging and disposable waste industry. Will the Minister encourage the development of recycling and education on waste management especially when one remembers the opposition from Derry and Inishowen 10years ago to stop Du Pont in their tracks when they tried to build an incinerator? The people won then, and the people of this island do not want incineration. When one recognises the severe pollution already attributed to Sellafield, we do not need pollution from incineration.

Mr Sam Foster: With respect to incineration, nobody has said that there will be incineration although it is a possible option. Waste management plans brought forward by district council groupings will include an assessment of the contribution incineration may make to waste management in Northern Ireland and I will carefully consider the matter. Waste-to-energy is only one of a range of possible options identified in the strategy but specific assessments are a matter for each district council when preparing their waste management plan. This is a big issue — a tremendous issue — and, as I said earlier, it is one we would like to hasten as fast as we can. We have got to be careful what we do.
Ultimately, waste has got to go somewhere. We want to reduce it. Part of the plan is to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill. Perhaps we will be able to dispense with landfill as far as possible. It will not be an easy task. All aspects will be taken into consideration. Our people are beavering away on it.

Mr James Leslie: Would the Minister agree that the people of Northern Ireland are very good at creating waste, but not so good at understanding the consequences of disposing of it? One of the major contributions towards dealing with the waste problem in the long run would be a much greater public consciousness of the need to create less waste.
Yes, indeed; it is a slow process. We are all somewhat careless about waste. Three quarters of us get rid of it; get it out to the bin; get it out of my way; not in my back yard; here we go. A long process of education is needed to get us to the point where we reduce, reuse, recycle and then dispose. This is a big issue confronting us.

Road Safety Officers

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment when the additional road safety officers to be employed by his Department will be in post.
(AQO18/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The process to appoint the 10 additional road safety education officers that I announced in July is well advanced. I expect selection interviews to take place in October with successful candidates taking up their posts by November. This is an essential element in my drive to improve road safety awareness among children. I visited Crawfordsburn Primary School last week and launched the new road safety calendar. I pay tribute to the excellent work of the road safety education officers.
The terrible carnage on the roads this weekend, indeed the carnage and deaths over the whole year, is saddening. I extend my sympathy to everyone who has suffered. It is terrible news for any family to receive. The "valley of death" is one great area of tears, and it creates devastation. There have been 118 deaths this year in Northern Ireland, and that is far too many. Today, I appeal to everyone to slow down, go easier, and be careful on the roads.

Mr Speaker: Our time being up, it is not possible to give Mr McCarthy the usual supplementary question.

Fuel Costs

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the escalating price of fuel and calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take measures to lessen the impact of high fuel costs on the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and its people, and to encourage other EU member states to bring their tax on fuel into line with that of neighbouring countries to allow fair competition and to discourage the illegal transportation of fuel across national boundaries. — [Mr Beggs]

Mr Jim Wilson: This morning, Members quoted many statistics to support their contributions to the fuel debate. Had the subject matter been different, we would probably be bored by statistics by now. However, it is the sheer weight of evidence supported by the statistics that has made the debate on fuel so meaningful. There is no doubt that public concern is firmly focused on fuel prices. The price of diesel has doubled since the introduction of the fuel duty escalator in 1994. Twenty five per cent of the 60% increase since 1993 took place in 1999 alone. The last Budget opened the door very slightly by offering some help, although this still meant a 3·4% increase in duty. The Government, however, still failed to address the main issue of excessive fuel duty. Currently, excise duty on diesel is twice that which exists in any other European Union member state.
The United Kingdom has benefited hugely from the vast increase in oil prices. Revenues from North Sea oil, inclusive of VAT, must exceed all Budget predictions. Road hauliers believe that part of this windfall should be returned to the industry so that a degree of competitiveness can be restored. High fuel costs have a disproportionate impact on the road haulage industry, with fuel amounting to 36% of its total operating costs. The United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in particular, depends heavily on an efficient haulage industry. Eighty one per cent of all domestic freight is carried by road. There are 65,000 businesses in the United Kingdom operating eight vehicles over 3.5 tons. There are over 25 million cars and 422,000 lorries over 3.5 tons. The UK’s fiscal regime has disadvantaged a once thriving industry. These fiscal policies are causing acute and irreversible damage to the industry.
In Northern Ireland, the majority of hauliers purchase their fuel in the Republic to enable their businesses to compete and survive. It is estimated that the total loss to the Treasury because of the refuelling of vehicles in the South and fuel smuggling is £350 million per year. The Government must, as the Government of the Republic have, recognise the economic importance of a strong and stable haulage industry. An accountancy firm has calculated that a windfall from rising oil prices means that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can afford to cut oil prices immediately by 8 pence per litre.
The Treasury receives £330 million per year for every dollar rise in the price of world oil. It is estimated that by 2002 tax lost to the Exchequer through vehicles refuelling outside the United Kingdom will amount to one billion pounds. The gap in diesel fuel prices between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union is now so huge that one might describe it as laughable, were the implications not so serious.
The policy of the Government, and the previous Administration, was to pile taxes on fuel when oil prices were so low that the impact on costs was blunted. Now that the world oil prices have been readjusted inevitably upwards, the United Kingdom has been exposed. The Government must act now to stabilise the situation and create a level playing field, particularly with regard to the Republic of Ireland and other European Union member states.
I will conclude with a simple illustration; I am holding five debit slips that represent five fills of fuel for my car and were made in Donegal, Cavan and Leitrim since July. That represents a saving to me of £55 or, in other words, a free fill of fuel. Multiply that by whatever factor is appropriate and you will see the enormity of the problem faced by our farmers, hauliers and fishermen. That simple illustration tells us much, and I support the motion.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the motion. This morning, on the way to this House, I paid 85·9 pence for each litre of diesel. Further up the road, I saw a sign pointing into the yard of a farm-type building advertising diesel on sale for 68 pence per litre. We are told that there is only 2 pence per litre profit on diesel so how can these people possibly sell it for 68 pence? It simply does not add up.
Earlier, Mr Dallat said that much of this is manufactured red diesel which has been chemically cleaned. That may be the case but we are told that there are something like 18 customs officers throughout Northern Ireland to deal with what is an ever-growing problem, and I find it difficult to understand how we are ever going to deal with this problem head on. This is a problem all over Northern Ireland, and I am sure that all Members will, at some point on their way home, see a sign that blatantly advertises diesel at up to 20 pence per litre cheaper than that in petrol stations. This has led to the closure of over 60 petrol stations in Northern Ireland together with the jobs that they provided. And, it is happening in areas where a petrol station can provide a rural community with a shop for essentials.
The first thing that we need to do is target the fraud aspect. I know that that is easier said than done, but the sale of illegal fuel has become so blatant that something must be done. We need to look at the situation and ask why people can be so blatant and get away with it.
Today a number of people from the road haulage industry and the agriculture industry came to Stormont to lobby Members. Most Members have received briefings from the CBI, the Anglo North Irish Fish Producers’ Organisation, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, et cetera, which are full of the statistics quoted earlier.
People care deeply about the situation. Mr Jim Wilson referred to the fact that 422,000 heavy goods vehicles are registered in the United Kingdom. That means 422,000 lorry drivers, not to mention the mechanics, transport clerks, fork-lift truck drivers, porters, and so on, needed to load and unload such vehicles. Those jobs will all be put at risk. We must send our products to Continental Europe, and if our transportation costs are so high that businesses are forced to use Continental transport in order to take them there, each one of those lorry-driving jobs could be taken by a European. They can buy their lorry and their diesel fuel more cheaply.
Our business depends very much on the road transport industry. Everything we make that is sent out to Great Britain or Europe goes by road, for we have no rail links with anywhere else. Things have to go by ferry and road. We are heavily dependent on road transport and the road haulage industry, and we must see that industry being supported by a reduction in fuel costs to ensure that we, in Northern Ireland, can get our products into the European market competitively.
We have talked much about motor fuel, but that is not the only fuel whose price has gone up. Mr John Kelly earlier referred to the cost of home heating oil, which has risen by over 100% in the last year or so. The most vulnerable people in society, those who have had their homes specially adapted to have oil — a non-manual heating system — installed for them because they were unfit to light fires, are now even more disadvantaged because of the high cost of heating fuel.
The British Government could afford to bring down the price of heating oil. It could, perhaps, also afford to bring down the cost of diesel to assist lorry drivers, but it is not just they who are suffering. Even ambulance services and the fire brigades are paying through the nose to provide an essential service to the community. We heard the Minister make a very welcome announcement last week that there would be an extra £50 to cover winter fuel payments. However, because of the cost of home heating oil, that is grossly inadequate.
In this country we have a disability living allowance, of which Members will all be aware by now. There are care and mobility components. The mobility component is given to those who need transportation, who simply cannot get from A to B without difficulty. We have now reached the stage where people receive mobility money; they have a car, but because petrol is so costly, most of them cannot afford to fill it.
The situation is getting worse and worse. Ms Morrice referred to our possible over dependence on oil, and that may well be the case, but that is the present state of affairs, and until such time as it changes fundamentally, I am afraid we shall have to live with it. I cannot see Gordon Brown changing things. Tony Blair came out in bullish form last week and said he would not be bullied.
Indeed, some of the oil companies were going to put their prices up again last week. The Government have got to the stage where they feel that because they have a majority, they can do no wrong. Some people within the Government are suffering from megalomania. They think that, no matter what they do, they are there forever. The people should tell them that they are not going to be there forever if they do not listen to what they want, and that includes our MPs in Parliament. The Government must listen. They have a duty to protect those people in our society who cannot afford heating oil, those who have to make a choice between heating and eating. It is not a nice situation to be in.
I support the motion and thank MrBeggs and MrDodds for bringing it forward. This matter needed to be aired as it has been today. I hope the Government pay heed to the will of the Assembly, because Northern Ireland is a special case. We are disadvantaged because people can go across the border and fill up. A lot of jobs have been lost because of that. In supporting the motion, I want to say that people in rural areas, where there is a lack of public transport, are being forced to use their cars because they have no other choice.

Mr Jim Shannon: What made this protest on the mainland so different from other protests, such as the protest over the poll tax and the like, is that the people who were protesting were middle-class. They were not people looking for trouble or taking advantage of a situation; they were people with a genuine grievance. That was highlighted last week when the police moved in after a few days to let the tankers out. Some of the people questioned said "No, we will not be fighting the police, we are law-abiding citizens". That made this protest different from the others. The British Government, in this instance, fell down by not reacting positively to the comments and needs of the people and the points they were trying to make. If TonyBlair, "two Jags" Prescott and Gordon Brown do not take note now, they will find themselves in a very serious position at the next election, and that is what they should be considering.
Different groups from industry were there also: the farmers, the hauliers, and the ordinary people who drive their car to and from work. Indeed, the emergency services were greatly hampered as a result. We should be looking at the needs of the people here and at the fact that the protests were made in a disciplined and dignified manner.
I would like to highlight some of the different issues which impact on my constituency and on the people of the Province. Eighty per cent of the price of petrol and diesel purchased in garages goes straight into the coffers of central Government. While the United Kingdom has the most expensive diesel and petrol — and this is true of Northern Ireland especially — people in Belgium and other countries benefit from paying the correct price for fuel. This is the real problem: the Government are making so much off the backs of the people here from petrol and diesel taxes. We must try to reduce that, but how? Perhaps this motion today will highlight the issue — the Government will have to take notice of it. They cannot ignore it. They cannot be arrogant, pompous or put their head in the sand and just ignore what is happening.
I would make two points. The first relates to the rural community, which I represent in the Ards Peninsula and in the Ards borough. It is very much a rural community, but it does take in some of the urban parts of the towns as well.
For many people living in the rural community the car is not a luxury, it is a necessity. It is important for those people who need it to get their children to school or who need to get to the shops. Indeed, some of those shops have closed as a result of the downturn in the agriculture industry. It is important that we focus on the impact on the rural community and how important the car is to them. Bus services do not always run at the time or to the place they would like, so the car can be their only way of getting about.
The second point relates to the fishing industry. We all know about the dire implications for the fishing industry and we have highlighted issues in this Chamber before, as has the Minster. The fishing industry has experienced a downturn in the last six months and especially since the beginning of this year. While new quotas have come in from Europe, we have also seen restrictions on where people can fish. We have seen the directives coming through and which are tying up the boats.
We have seen decommission, indeed the only decommission that has ever taken place is in the fishing industry. We have clearly seen some of the issues that are important to the fishing industry. While Government and EU Directives say that people cannot take boats out, that they cannot fish in places they used to, the fishing industry now finds itself impacted by the fuel increase.
In the last few months, fuel and diesel for fishing boats increased by 50% — that is before you take the boat out of the harbour and before you pay the rest of your overheads. That is quite difficult for the fishing industry to take on board when it already feels the restrictions coming from Europe and elsewhere. Skippers must continue to purchase the necessary equipment to make businesses financially viable. At the same time, they are not able to compensate for the increase in diesel costs.
A boat going out to sea at the present time — probably for the week — will cost about £1,000 to fill with fuel. That is a large proportion of any catch that you might make before the end of the week. It represents a very serious obstacle to making a successful business. Neither the Government nor the Fisheries Division at Stormont, have ever made any real effort to stand up for the rights of fishermen. They have simply acted as facilitators of EU legislation, which if unchallenged — and up to now it has been — will see our industry put to the sword. At the same time, devolution has not seen any change in the industry’s fortunes, with the Minister, while well intentioned, failing to make the voice of local industry heard. We need a strong voice for the fishing industry, which probably employs between 3,000 and 4,000 people. Livelihoods in the villages of Portavogie, Ardglass, Kilkeel, Annalong and many other places are tied up in fishing. Many families’ lives and focus is on the fishing industry.
The French seem to be taking the lead in protesting against such behaviour and have made a number of moves to aid their fishing fleet. They have come up with a number of ideas. They have decreased corporation tax. They have decreased and taken away the landing duty and they have increased the benefits that can be given to fishermen and their families. While they are not directly subsidising the industry the French authorities are actively seeking a way in which to help the fishing industry, which is more than can be said of our Government and the Fisheries Division at Stormont.
I have written to the Minister indicating some ways whereby assistance could be given to the fishing industry. I hope she may be able to make some movement. We have warned, over the last few years, about the fate of the local fishing industry.
As another nail is put into the coffin of the fishing industry, these warnings continue to go unheeded, and the Government seem determined to destroy a way of life which thousands of people depend on. Today we have tried to illustrate the different facets of industry, economy and lifestyle in Northern Ireland and how the rural community has been affected by this issue. The fishing industry, I believe, needs help as well.

Mr David McClarty: Throughout the past three years we have heard numerous calls from the Deputy Prime Minister, among others, to step out of our cars and get on to public transport. No one can ridicule such a plea. It makes good economic and environmental sense for an individual to decide to use public transport, be it bus or rail. There is something to be said for travelling to work in comfort, at speed and on time. In Northern Ireland, however, we cannot afford such a simple luxury — quite literally.
The railways task force interim report on the future of the railway network in Northern Ireland clearly sets out the cost of establishing a decent standard of rail service in Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future. We are under no illusions, therefore, as to the desperate situation of our rail network. In the meantime, in the absence of such an adequate and needful transport facility, the car is the main, and in some parts of the country, the only form of transportation available. In many respects, petrol is the lifeblood of our nation. Our dependence on it is absolutely vital for the Province’s economy to function properly, and for us to lead fully communicable lives. The current high rate of petrol taxation means that everyone suffers. Petrol tax is a very tangible tax paid out of the pockets of all people, irrespective of their ability to afford it.
However, certain groups of people are hit hardest — farmers, fishermen, those who live and work in rural areas who have no other means of transportation but the car, industry and business. For many of these people, as was expressed in an article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ last Friday,
"The current rate of taxation on fuel is the difference between breaking even and going under".
Given the dual reality in Northern Ireland of poor rail transportation and inflated fuel costs, surely the Assembly has a valid argument in pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to take measures to lessen the impact of high fuel costs in the Province. The people’s "genuine and sincerely held grievances", to quote the Prime Minister, must now be listened to and acted upon.
Although we in Northern Ireland have not held protests like those in Great Britain, our grievances and concerns are just as great and equally valid, if not more so, than those across the water. We must press this point at the highest possible level in the Government during the following days and weeks if a positive outcome is to be achieved.
There are wider issues to be addressed. I thank MrBeggs and MrDodds for highlighting these in the motion. We need to try to stamp out illegal smuggling of fuel across national borders, something that we can identify with in Northern Ireland. It would also be encouraging to see a fairer and more uniform petrol tax level throughout the European Union than currently exists. Then we might not see a repeat of the scenes that occurred in Great Britain and other European countries last week. Members of the House can and ought to combine our influence over these matters for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland. We want to see fairer fuel prices for ourselves as part of the United Kingdom and fairer fuel prices for the United Kingdom as part of the European Union. It is with this hope that I support the motion and ask others to do likewise.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I support the motion. I speak as a representative of a border constituency. Border areas have been feeling the negative effects of the British Government’s tax on fuel for a number of years. For at least the past three years the signs have been visible of the damage that is being done to local economies.
We are aware of the debate that has been going on at European level for many years now about the particular problems of border areas and the need for measures to help such areas overcome peripherality and isolation. The British and Irish Governments, as well as many other Governments in the European Union, are committed to supporting the development of integrated and sustainable border communities.
The submission for Northern Ireland structural funds and the submission from the South, part of the national development plan, both contained a common chapter, which set out the importance of co-operation between the two Governments as well as co-operation at local level for the benefit of those areas.
The current wide differences that we have heard about so much here today in fuel taxes between the two Governments are undermining the commitments which the Governments have given at European level. This problem has been going on for threeyears in my county of Fermanagh. Forecourts are empty; almost all the small filling stations have now closed; most road hauliers have moved their businesses south into the Republic of Ireland; and more people have become unemployed as a result and that in an area like Fermanagh where traditionally there have been high levels of unemployment.
I want to refer to comments made earlier by MrMcCartney, the Member for North Down, about the high levels of smuggling and racketeering in south Armagh and Fermanagh. The smuggling of fuel, or anything else for that matter, and racketeering are not a serious issue in Fermanagh. Whether it is happening at all, I cannot say.
The very serious issue in Fermanagh is, as I have said, the drift across the border and the effects that that is having on the wider economy, and not least on agriculture. There is much dependence on agriculture in the border areas and, as references have been made to fuel prices, I want to point out that the fuel used for agricultural purposes, the red diesel, is now costing farmers 25pence per litre. Over the last 12months the increase on that fuel alone has been 150%, and that has happened at a time when farmers have been trying to cope with the problems and the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the BSE crisis.
This problem with fuel has been brought to the attention of the Governments in various countries. I just want to refer to a deputation of which I was part of, together with the MP for South Down, MrEddieMcGrady, that went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1999. We detailed to the Chancellor the problems at that time, and we asked for Government intervention. My council in Fermanagh regards this as a priority issue and has raised it with the present Secretary of State, but until now the Government have refused to help.
I hope that when today’s debate is finished they will take on board the serious situation that now exists for everybody in this community.
The common chapter that I referred to identified the common challenges facing the economies in both parts of Ireland. The solution to this fuel crisis requires a review of the British Government’s policy on fuel taxes in Northern Ireland. Is there a precedent for that? The Chancellor’s recent initiative offered tax incentives to small and medium-sized enterprises. Some of these tax incentives are of the order of 100%, and that measure shows that it is possible to achieve modifications in the existing tax regime.
Nothing is impossible with regard to finding a solution to this problem. I call on the Government to act now so that the discrepancies in fuel taxes between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are addressed. It will be in everyone’s interest — especially those living on the northern side of the border and along the border corridor.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I support the motion. By this stage, everything that needed to be said has been said. However, I am delighted that the motion has cross-party support. Every section of the community has been affected by this issue. They continue to be affected by it, and they will be affected until it is resolved. Farmers, hauliers, petrol station owners and ordinary people who depend on fuel for heating and travel are affected. I hope that the people who can make a difference, namely the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will listen to the united voice of the Assembly. I also appeal to the Northern Ireland MPs to exercise their voice in Westminster and to try and get action to be taken so that this situation can be redressed sooner rather than later.

Mr Edwin Poots: This is a very timely debate and I thank the Members who brought it forward. We have to understand how we arrived at this situation. The policy of this Government and the previous Government was to introduce a fuel escalator. The escalator was allegedly to encourage less people to use private transport and more people to use public transport. Mr McGrady indicated that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the escalator, but unfortunately the Labour Government decided to carry it on even though other European governments who had been using it saw that they had reached their peak and called it a day. Those governments, very wisely, stopped using the fuel escalator while the British Government continued to use it to raise the price of fuel.
Unfortunately, the Labour Government did not go forward with a two-pronged attack and also try to bring about greater use of the public transport system. Mr Prescott, after being in office for three years, has only recently brought out a document addressing the problems in public transport. Yet, we have had three years of the hiking-up of fuel prices.
Over the past five years, the number of cars on Northern Ireland’s roads has increased by 21% — approximately 125,000. Therefore, the fuel escalator, without also addressing the needs of public transport, does not work. The environmental reasons given for the fuel escalator were exposed last week as a great myth, and in the middle of the crisis Mr Blair said that the price of fuel could not be cut because the money was needed for the Health Service and the education service. That is true. It is not what the Government have been saying in previous budgets but it is a fact of life. Around £40 billion per year is used as a stealth tax — a tax that no one can see. People go to the petrol pump and the petrol pump acts as a tax collector.
That "stealth" tax is taken from the community, and it is not put back into transport, it is not put into roads, it is not put into railways or airports. It is put into other services, so that they can tinker about with tax at the other end of the regime and go to the electorate at the next election and say we have cut the rate of income tax by 2%, 3% or whatever. The fact is that they are taking more tax than ever.
In Northern Ireland, the Exchequer has lost millions of pounds. It is estimated that three-quarters of a billion litres of petrol and diesel are now imported to Northern Ireland. No tax is paid on that. Three-quarters of a billion litres equates to about £460million lost to the economy. Furthermore, the service stations that would have been selling that fuel lose about £40million that they would have made from it. On top of that, the services that they would have provided and the other goods that they would have sold are also lost to the British tax economy. That has resulted in a net loss to the economy in Northern Ireland.
There is also a loss to the economy in the United Kingdom as a whole. Lorry drivers all fill up their vehicles when they are in Belgium, Holland or France. They do not wait until they get back to the United Kingdom to fill up their lorries. They are allowed to carry 300gallons of fuel in their tanks. As soon as they get close to the ferry port they fill up their tanks with diesel. Then they come over to the United Kingdom, do what they have to do and go back to the continent with their next load. Inevitably, they will fill up on the continent again. That means less tax coming into the British economy. The statistical evidence is that diesel revenue has actually been reduced as a result of high fuel prices in the United Kingdom.
The high fuel prices that the haulage companies are paying impact upon ordinary consumers: you, me and the people that we represent. The higher the cost of fuel to the haulage companies, the higher the costs that they will pass on to their customers. Their customers are the Safeways, the Tescos and the large shops in our community. They have to add that into the price of their goods, and ultimately the consumer has to pay more, whether it be in food, in clothing or whatever. They have to pay more as a result of the high fuel costs. The consumer is not only losing out in terms of driving, but in every other respect as well.
There are a number of ways in which this could be tackled. There could be an overall reduction in the price of fuel. A Member said earlier that if the Government reduced the price of fuel by 8p per litre, it would not affect the Chancellor’s public sector projections, because he had expected to gain an extra £4billion in revenue from North Sea oil.
The other way would be to make the tax rebatable to VAT-registered companies, particularly haulage companies, because the haulage people are the ones who are suffering the most. We already have a regime wherein VAT can be reclaimed by the haulage companies and by legitimate businesses. Why can we not have a rebate on fuel costs to VAT-registered businesses? That would reduce costs for the haulage companies.
It is considered that some 85,000 people in the United Kingdom who were involved in haulage lost their jobs as a result of high fuel costs. That needs to be tackled. It cannot be left any longer. MrBlair has been given 55days to address it by the protestors in the United Kingdom, and it was clear that public opinion was with the protestors, not with the Government. They had lost touch with the people on this particular issue. MrBlair needs to address this issue and bring fuel costs in the United Kingdom down to an acceptable level within the European Union. We are in a community where we are supposed to compete with the other countries on a fair basis, but it is difficult to compete on a fair basis whenever such a vital commodity has such an exorbitant price in comparison to the other member states.
Fuel is essential in Northern Ireland, both for the agriculturr community and for ordinary consumers. High fuel costs have a greater impact on Northern Ireland, because we burn oil in our power stations and over 50% of houses use oil-fired central heating. I understand that the current price of home heating oil is not due to the tax regime implemented by GordonBrown — it is due to the high oil prices set by OPEC — but the Government could be doing more.
We have been imposing sanctions against Iraq for 10years. It has been interesting to see those sanctions implemented. The forces that went in to deal with SaddamHussein at that time did not finish the job. They have decided to punish the whole community in Iraq because of their leader. That has lead to the deaths of some 20,000 children through shortages of medicine and food.
The Government should be saying to the President of the United States, in particular, that it is time to review that situation. We should supply Iraq with more medical supplies, ensure that they have enough food to feed their children and, at the same time, allow them to sell more oil. There is an oil deficit throughout the world. That particular country has a food and medicine deficit. We should not starve the children of that country because they have an evil and wicked leader. The Prime Minister should be looking at that. That could significantly reduce the price of fuel. Our pensioners have to pay for home heating oil and our electricity companies have to pay to generate electricity. That is another thing that I would like to see the Government looking at.
I welcome this debate. It has been useful, and I hope that Westminster sits up and takes notice, not only of what the people in England, Scotland and Wales are saying, but also of what this Assembly, which represents the people of Northern Ireland, is saying.

Mr George Savage: I welcome this debate. I support the proposals put forward by my own party and by the DUP. There has not been a person in the Chamber today who has not thrown their weight 100% behind this.
We have arrived at the point where everybody is repeating themselves time and again. I concur with what a number of people have said. There was a demonstration outside today by farmers and hauliers. It was brought home to me that we are going to have a late harvest. All the grain is going to have to be dried and there is only one way of doing that: by using oil. The cost of diesel is three times what it was last year. All the costs have doubled. Farmers have all that to pay, yet in the past two years their incomes have decreased by 17% to 20%. How can we expect people to keep their businesses running in a situation like that?
Northern Ireland depends very much on help from outside, for tourism example. The bed and breakfast and hotel industries depend on oil. They need all they encouragement they can get, instead of obstacles being put in their way. Obstacles have been put in their way through no fault of their own. These industries cannot create progress and prosperity when costs and overheads are driving them down. All these expenses have got to be clawed back from the people who come into this country: tourists. The price of home heating oil affects homes for the elderly. That has to be taken on board.
This is something that has to be taken on board. We are coming into winter and we have to make preparations to help the elderly. A lot of talk today was about the fuel escalator — that is all very well. But what long-term effects will this have on the economy of an already crippled industrialised business fraternity — a business fraternity that has suffered over the years because of the troubles? And just when we thought that things were about to move forward, we find ourselves again at a standstill.
I know that everybody in this Chamber will throw their weight completely behind this motion, but we have to take this further. I hope the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer take on board the seriousness of the situation, because if something is not done, the whole place will gradually come to a standstill. There are many areas that need an injection of finance. The crisis that is about to hit this country is unbelievable. I hope that the Government take heed of today’s protest by farmers and hauliers who are facing doom and gloom all the time.
This has been a worthwhile exercise by all involved and I only hope that the Government take heed.

Mr P J Bradley: I have no doubt that the motion was tabled with every good intention, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to support it. But I fear that given the publicity that will follow this debate and all the figures that we have heard, even more hauliers, agriculture contractors and businesses that depend on fuel will go south for their supplies.
I checked one item this morning that allows me to give an up-to-date report on the scale of the problem. A litre of diesel north of the border is retailing at 87p, while a litre of the same fuel on the southern side is available at 65p, which, when converted, is 52p sterling — a difference of 35p per litre. Mr Dodds referred this morning to how talking of litres gives us a less serious view of the problem. The figures I have just quoted, when converted to gallons, demonstrate a price differential between North and South of £1.59 per gallon. One could be forgiven for thinking that £1.59 was the price of a gallon of diesel, but it is not. It is the difference between the price of a gallon of white diesel bought at the pumps in the South and one bought at a service station in the North. Please forgive me for repeating the price differential — £1.59 per gallon.
Last week hauliers and farmers in the Republic served notice on their Government that they are not going to tolerate what they view as an unacceptable fuel tax and, in world terms, greatly inflated fuel prices. I can only imagine what the additional repercussions here will be if the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister McCreevy deal with their fuel crisis by reducing the prices in their jurisdiction.
I join the call from the Assembly for an immediate reduction of our over inflated fuel prices, responsibility for which rests firmly with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and their fuel taxes. If this does not happen, our hauliers, our fishing industry, our agriculture and horticulture will just move day by day into a financial wilderness, from which they will never emerge. I welcome the debate and I support the motion. May I say to Mr Poots that the Government have 56days, and counting down, to get their act together.

Mr Speaker: I call the First Minister to respond on behalf of the Executive.

Rt Hon David Trimble: We considered it appropriate that in this debate, something should be said on behalf of the Administration. We do not have responsibility for taxation matters, but we do have a responsibility for relationships with other institutions. I want to apologise to the Assembly. Because of other business I was unable to attend the debate this morning, but I have listened to the debate this afternoon.
This is an important matter, and that importance has been underlined by the comments that Members have made. Last week we saw significant public protests across the water that had a significant impact on the supply of fuel. Similar problems did not arise in Northern Ireland. If they had, then a crisis management group, chaired by the head of the Civil Service, would have been activated by Ministers. It would have included all the permanent secretaries and would have reported to the Executive.
The crisis management group, and others, would have had to consider such matters as the deployment of Government staff and property, the allocation of responsibility for taking action — whether it be gaps, overlaps or uncertainties; the co-ordination of difficulties between organisations; public information issues; financial aspects of the response; the provision of immediate funding to meet special needs; the approval of emergency expenditure and the need for long-term funding for restoration and risk litigation. Had a crisis arisen, the nature of that crisis would have been somewhat different here in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is important, in this context, to bear in mind that power supplies would not have been affected in the same way. Electricity generation here is dependent mainly on natural gas and coal. Coolkeeragh, the only power station running on oil, receives its supplies by ship, not by road. Obviously if difficulties had arisen in other means of transport, that would have had a progressive effect on industry here.
Consequently, we want to welcome the responsible approach that was taken by hauliers and farmers here. I assure them, and the community as a whole, that we do not underestimate the strength of opinion on this issue. Indeed, we were aware of the extent of the problem, and we have, over some time, been making representations to the Government about it. Last December, at the inaugural meeting of the British/Irish Intergovernmental Council, we made representations to both the British and Irish Prime Ministers. In addition, we have made representations to the Treasury, and there have been meetings at ministerial level on this issue.
Representations have been made with regard to the overall level of the fuel duty, which is too high in absolute terms, and the differential between North and South, which people have mentioned in this debate, is a considerable problem and we have also explored other possibilities, in particular, the way in which other assistance may be given to industry. The difficulty here is with regard to European community requirements on state aids and regional aids. We have been trying to explore these issues with the Government and will continue to do so. The unanimity in today’s debate, right across the political spectrum, can only enhance the weight of the representations that we have made and will continue to make.
It remains to be seen whether the Chancellor will respond by altering fuel duties in the next Budget, or whether he will offer some other compensation to hauliers and motorists through rebates, motor tax or licence fees.
I note the report in the press this morning, specifically in ‘TheTimes’, suggesting that the Chancellor is not minded to cut fuel tax. It is said that he is considering extending the fuel rebate scheme, used by the bus industry, to road hauliers as well as offering further discounts in vehicle excise duties. No matter what is done there, we will press for similar measures in Northern Ireland.
The position here is further complicated by evidence pointing to a high degree of cross-border fuel smuggling. That has put severe financial pressures on petrol retailers, particularly in border areas, and a considerable number of them who refused to deal in illicit fuel have closed down. We have met relevant Ministers on a number of occasions to press for measures to be taken to deal with this matter.
Because the Deputy First Minister and I were in the United States last week, we were unable to meet the representatives of the fuel crisis group. I am happy to say that our junior Ministers, Dennis Haughey and Dermot Nesbitt, did meet the group and discuss matters with them. We are very grateful to the group for the responsible attitude they and others adopted, and, consequently, for the absence of any major disruption to fuel supplies in Northern Ireland. We understand the difficulties faced by many industries, and we will continue to monitor the situation, make representations where we can and look at the implications for local industry.
The Home Secretary stated in interviews today that legislation will be introduced to put oil companies on the same basis as other utilities such as gas and electricity with regard to the continuity of supply, but he ruled out any immediate recourse to emergency legislation. Exactly the same emergency legislation is on the statute book in Northern Ireland, should it be needed to deal with these matters. If further legislation is introduced in England and Wales with regard to the regulation of utilities, we will consider whether there are any implications for us in Northern Ireland.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the apparently unanimous cross-party support for this motion. Some of that support came from surprising quarters, but I welcome it nevertheless. Many additional valid points were made by Members during the course of the debate, and while I do not need to respond to these, I would like to comment on some matters.
Those of you who are aware of the Newry and Mourne Hydrocarbons Traffic Order 1990 will know that it was introduced specifically to end fuel smuggling by Republicans in the Larkin Road area in south Armagh. If there has been a transformation by Republicans on the smuggling issue, I would welcome it; however, I will believe it when they and other paramilitary groups end smuggling and support the customs and excise officers and the RUC in enforcing the law.
Those who suggest that an all-Ireland economy would be a wonderful panacea should also bear in mind that this would mean a rise of 10% in our income tax and medical costs every time a person visited the doctor. Such a course of action, however, would not take account of the heritage and the political wishes of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland who wish to remain in the United Kingdom.
I also want to express my surprise at the lack of responsibility indicated by comments from SDLP Members. Balanced prices either side of the border would be required to end smuggling. It would be likely that these would be obtained by reducing fuel duty in Northern Ireland and increasing it in the Republic of Ireland, as has been suggested by my Colleague, Esmond Birnie. Instead, however, the SDLP talked about a vague concept of harmonisation, without acknowledging that the only way of achieving that would be for the citizens of the Irish Republic to endure some pain.
I would like to thank all Members who have spoken in support of the motion. This issue is likely to remain on both the short-term and long-term political agendas until fuel pricing disparity has been removed and the potential for profiteering by smugglers across the border comes to an end. I would like to assure this House and the various interest groups, who have held such a dignified and effective protest today, that it is my intention to continue to press this issue, both in the Assembly, where relevant, and in other Houses. I expect our Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland to continue to seek the adoption of the many worthwhile proposals which were made on this issue in the recent Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report and to press that with central Government.
It was a thorough report and some worthwhile comments were made. It can now be taken forward at Westminster.
I thank the First Minister for his response on behalf of the Executive, which illustrates that he appears to be well briefed on the matter. I urge Members to support the motion.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly expresses its concern at the escalating price of fuel and calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take measures to lessen the impact of high fuel costs on the economic well-being of Northern Ireland and its people, and to encourage other EU member states to bring their tax on fuel into line with that of neighbouring countries to allow fair competition and to discourage the illegal transportation of fuel across national boundaries.

Mr Speaker: When a motion of this kind is passed, calling upon a Government Minister or other individual to take action, it is my practice to forward to the relevant person a note of the motion and a copy of Hansard. If there is a response, I will make it available to all Members.
Adjourned at 5.11 pm.